[gflacount]

That's a fair point for services that limit use based on number of concurrent devices/streams. There are, however, many services that explicitly state the account may only be used by a given single user and those providers will seek legal action if that user shares their account. This ultimately leads to significant pain for both the company and user.

[necovek]

Going from "there are...many services" to "sharing accounts is robbing companies" is what I am having a problem with. That per-seat pricing "because companies can afford it" is robbing customers instead!

Hey, you are selling on the internet, do not make up "costs" just to increase your revenue. I am fine with restricting simultaneous usage where there is an actual cost to it (eg. streaming) as long as that's clearly indicated (and as people have multiple devices these days, it should never be limited to one-at-a-time).

[thekeyper]

The contention on account sharing is "robbing companies of revenue". It is not related to additional costs imposed on companies due to account sharing. A non-negligible number of people engaged in account sharing are enjoying real value from the service(s) they are not paying for and would pay for if they could not account share. Hence account sharing enables the loss of potential revenue. As stated in another reply, if a company sees value in allowing customers to share accounts, they can build provisioning mechanisms that align with their TOS as Netflix has done.

[oauea]

It's a fair point for any service. If the service doesn't actually provide a service they can control concurrent access to, then it doesn't cost them anything. So you're literally just trying to scam your customers. Gross.