I find it rather ironic, that the same site, which shouts down any attempts to reason that an idea can be owned — and that using it without the owner's permission is illegal and immoral — would be so respectful towards other kinds of information.

If, as the opinion prevailing here holds, "information can not be stolen" because you still have your original copy, what grounds are there to prohibit somebody else to share, what they know about you, with others? On that matter, will you also outlaw gossip?

The problem seems to be that if you *can* give permission then you will be coerced into giving permission.

Except the term coercion implies use of force. As long as you aren't forced to use a web-site despite your disagreement with their EULA, you can not complain of being "coerced".

I have no contract with anybody on any of my phone numbers and haven't had a phone contract since about 2005, is that satisfactory for you? Now go away, troll.

- Ok, I disagree, I am a person "who doesn't want it" and I am not buying it.

I also disagree with all the ACs posting comments, saying how I am irrelevant since I am not the target audience since I stopped watching TV a while back. That's also incorrect, anybody is a target audience, the question is are you selling something that people are willing to buy or not? If you are not selling a product I am interested in, then you are preventing me from being target audience.

Well, aren't you a swell troll? In my comment I am talking about myself (such pronouns as 'I' and 'My' and a clear lack of 'you' and 'your' should have made it clear, but obviously not for trolls) and not about you, so get your head out of your ass (now you see, I used 'you' and 'your' there, that is a call to action) and go troll somebody else.

Wrong. Anybody is a potential client, voting with your money to cancel a service you don't like is the best way to let a company know they may want to look at what they are selling and figure out why they are losing clients and revenue.

- yes.

My phone is unlocked, I use it in many different countries, it runs exactly what I allow it to and at the end I need it to talk to people.

I don't need a TV, it's an optional entertainment channel, it's not the primary one, so I don't see how it is the same thing at all. If I had to use the TV to talk to people and had no choice but to pay for some idiotic football game I would never watch and have 0 interest in, that would be one thing, but I don't have to use my TV to talk to people! I use a phone to do it and I have many choices in phones, carriers, services I buy and programs I run.

Wrong, maybe I would subscribe and watch TV if and only if it was something I found entertaining, convenient and at a correct price.

Give me a service I want to buy and then I can be a customer again, but I voted with my money, so don't you fucking tell me what I can and cannot say.

If Verizon is in fact breaking a contract it has with ESPN then all I can say is that it is a horrible contract.

I don't watch TV, haven't for more years than I can remember, I don't care for commercials and I don't care for the content. I have 0 (zero) interest in watching any sports on TV whatsoever, never had any interest in watching sports, never will have any interest in watching sports.

Just saying, forcing somebody like me to sign up for a service that provides sports information as part of the package is a 100% way to have me avoid that service.