If they decided that re-selling is necessary for providing the service (for cash flow reasons, for example), what would stand in the way of them doing that?
Because the law doesn't care about your cash flow, and a reasonable person would expect that the fee you pay to upkeep your server is sufficient, since that's how it works in general.
Trying to claim an extraordinary right to hosted works would require extraordinary language in the agreement so that it would not be debatable that they could use the content for whatever they want. Just the fact we disagree about what it means puts it on a bad legal footing if their intent is to have unlimited license to everything in a VM. And that's not a position any company should put itself in. But if they don't do what you worry about, they are on perfectly fine legal footing.
> a reasonable person would expect that the fee you pay to upkeep your server is sufficient, since that's how it works in general
A reasonable person would expect their fees or one-off payments for a myriad of technology products and services sufficient to cover their costs, and yet so many of these are being discreetly subsidised by the selling of customer data. The customer (knowingly or not) ostensibly agreed to that when agreeing to the EULAs.
Arguably that's how it works in general. What's stopping a hosting service from using the same modus operandi to allegedly be able to offer more competitive prices to their customers?
