So, to sum this up: EA thinks they can now get away with not spending money on licensing fees.
They really might've upped the creativity of their explanatory bullshit though, this explanation is actually accurate. Can't have that, now can we?
Well not quite. It isn't that at all, if you look at how the licencing works they're right with this one; other media formats don't pay licences to guns because it's essentially advertising for the gun manufcaturer. Movies don't pay, books don't pay, etc, so why should games? It'll definately be interesting to see how this pans out, if it results in legal conflict with the manufacturers then I'd like to see how the defence of "why should we pay if you don't charge warner bros" holds up.
I'm not saying they don't have a case, I'm saying the reason for them doing this is that they figured they can get away with it. They'd happily ignore any comparison to movies/books if it was beneficial to their bottom line.
This being a large corporation, they generally prefer to mask their money-grubbing with a fancy explanation. Much like they're not hogging your contact info in order to force-feed you targeted advertising, it is to "deliver the best experience".
In this case, however, there is not a single underfed developer orphan twin in sight, merely the bare-faced admittance they'd much rather not fork over huge sums of money. Rather boring, really.