1) You can continue getting dismal trade value for your games and can continue buying used games which are $5 cheaper than their new editions and don't support the people who worked hard to make what you enjoy.
Quick Q; How would developers benefit from a group of ten people being able to buy and play one copy of their game? I doubt that publishers were champing at the bit to sign up to that scheme and sell 90% fewer games. Used games are bad but sharing one game between ten people is super great for revenue, you guys.
I don't believe that was ever going to be a full license sharing scheme and was DEFINITELY not going to entail concurrent use. I agree that was ineffectively fleshed out/confusing and agree that the system as it was understood was unfeasible. I do believe a lending system much like the Kindle or Nook was feasible, but yes... a no-holds barred videogame orgy was unlikely to have been the result of that program.