The legality of EULAs are questionable at best -
There is a difference between "everything that is written in a EULA is law" and "EULA can be safely ignored". Just because some parts are illegal/inapplicable in some countries doesn't means that all are.
The judge even said that the difference between selling software and selling the license to software was an "artificial distinction". This wasn't a binding decision, but it bodes well.
The situation was different, it was physical items, not one specifically described as being "subscriptions" and like you said it wasn't a binding decision and it was just one judge.
Look what happened with Autodesk vs Vernor :
First judgement : "second hand sales of software are ok"
Appeal : "no they are not"
Unless it's written in black and white in a law, you are totally dependent of the good will/interpretation of the judge.
Plus every digital (and physical) store has a 'buy' button, not a 'rent' or 'license' button and somehow you don't have to click 'I agree' to a EULA before "buying" the software ... only
Well peoples bought "lifetime" subscriptions to Tabula Rasa, it was also "buy", not rent nor subscribe and yet I am pretty sure they are not able to play the game anymore.
Concerning the EULA, you can read them before you buy the game, it's mentioned that you have to accept it to play the game (for Steamwork or Origin retail games it's mentioned on the package along with an URL of where you can find the EULA) so I am not convinced that the "I didn't know about the EULA before I bought the game" defense could really work.
All music sellers are DRM-free these days - I can't think of a single seller that isn't. Audiobooks are sold with DRM from every merchant still, but music is DRM-free everywhere.
Sadly I think it was just a temporary victory, just because they didn't had an interoperable DRM ready, if Ultraviolet is ever successful I am pretty sure that DRMs will make a rapid comeback to music too.