This article reads like a press release from the plantiff (Wixen) and took a little googling to unwind. Long story short, it sounds like there's disagreement about what
type of license Spotify needs. Spotify has previously claimed that streaming is
not "reproduction" and is more akin to "performance"... and they (may) have those licenses. What they do
not have (in some cases?) is a "mechanical" license[1], which carries requirements for notification and payment that Spotify claims are onerous.[2]
Thus, I'd re-write the lede of this story to:
Music streaming company Spotify was sued by Wixen Music
Publishing Inc last week for allegedly using thousands of
songs... without [the right kind of] license and
[associated kind of notification and] compensation to the
music publisher.
[1]
https://www.harryfox.com/license_music/what_is_mechanical_li... - Incidentally, this is HFM, the same firm Spotify uses for "third-party" licensing. They define a mechanical license to include the right to "reproduce and distribute copyrighted musical compositions (songs) on ... interactive streams and other digital configurations." Seems a little damning for Spotify.
[2] https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/spotify-dont-compa...
Thus, I'd re-write the lede of this story to:
[1] https://www.harryfox.com/license_music/what_is_mechanical_li... - Incidentally, this is HFM, the same firm Spotify uses for "third-party" licensing. They define a mechanical license to include the right to "reproduce and distribute copyrighted musical compositions (songs) on ... interactive streams and other digital configurations." Seems a little damning for Spotify.[2] https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/spotify-dont-compa...