Weren't games better back when online activation was nonexistent among its many "features"?  Of course they were.  Games back then used to be games that you owned, not tuxedos that you rented or cars you leased.  Fair use was fair, not some randomly interpreted term by a media biased intellectual property lawyer.  Unfortunately, those times gave way to the present, where your entertaintment doesnt belong to you, instead is broadcasted remotely to you at its real owner's discretion, whenever they feel like it.  Which is something that for a lack of a better word, stinks.  This is where the concepts and philosophies of free software and its sibling open source come as some sort of alternative to this entertaintment for hire.  However, since games and other media are seen as content, whereas the "content" (software) released under free software licenses are usually seen as "tools" rather than content, they are not included under these licenses.  There is an equivalent called the Creative Commons for creative works of art, but these works unfortunately don't have as much coverage as traditional works of creative work have, and thus the vast majority of people aren't aware of it.  It all probably comes down to money.  If content creators believe that somehow with the protection of intellectual property locks on their works their works' copyright integrity and more importantly, their return of investment are ensured, they will avoid all kinds of lesser strict licenses and other means.  An important task is to change this way of thinking of creators of different intellectual works, so that they understand that their works have more value when they have the most freedom to diseminate throughout different audiences in the world.