I don't understand why you are dismissing it as "pure semantics." Semantics is the fundamental meaning of words. If you advertise "buy", but the license is is more akin to "rent", then that's lying. If you lie to someone, they won't be very amused if you say "well, 'truth' and 'falsehood' is just pure semantics."

You wouldn't say that you are "buying a revokable license to live in an apartment" when you sign a lease. You would say that you are renting. Why does it suddenly become buying if it's a digital good?

It's not pure semantics, since your advertising is part of the 'deal' offered. If you say 'buy it here now!', you can't claim that it's some revocable licence, that's illegal bait and switch.

If you say 'buy a sofa now, free shipping!' and later claim that I got a revocable, time-limited licence to use that sofa, then in consumer protection laws that is perfect legal grounds to either say 'screw you, I bought it and your fine print is null and void', or request all my money back. It should be the same for digital content - permanent and with ability to transfer/resale, just as for books.

> the 'rent' vs 'buy' discussion is pure semantics.

All truth in advertising laws are about 'pure semantics' if that's how you choose to refer to those kinds of distinctions. That doesn't make truth in advertising any less important.