> In the digital age, it is not plausible to allege that reasonable consumers believed they were obtaining "ownership" of a digital game. So their argument rea

> In the digital age, it is not plausible to allege that reasonable consumers believed they were obtaining "ownership" of a digital game. So their argument really is that it is unreasonable for anybody to believe they own any of the things they download or purchase digitally? What a leap there. I mean thats as plain english as you can get to an official rubber stamp on "you will own nothing and you will be happy". And then they want to have it both ways by interchangeably using the words "revocable license" and "ownership" when it suits their needs. License in small writing/text, but "own" in anything the user might actually reasonably read.