This suggests they were getting the label's data from the label and paying the label.
That seems like a license to me.
They could then use the data gained from (infringing) streaming/uploads as a bargaining chip while negotiating the license.
I read it as, "we license their songs, and then we license the usage data back to them at a higher rate once it reaches some threshold."
You apparently read it as, "we infringe until we have enough usage data, and then we negotiate a contract where they pay us."
The few ambiguous parts are,
1. Whether "we use the label’s songs" means to license or to infringe.
2. Whether "the data we got from them" is licensed or infringement.
3. Whether "what we pay them" means what they had paid in license fees up to that point, or the terms of the negotiated license.
> we are achieving all this growth without paying > a dime to any of the labels
> In our case, we use the label’s songs till > we get a 100 (million) uniques
In their business plan, they take a loss for licensing up front, but eventually net positive by licensing the data back to the labels.
Contrast with, e.g., Spotify, who nets a loss with the labels.
"Let’s keep this quite for as long as we can."
also,
> they take a loss for licensing up front
doesn't seem like the correct interpretation, because they say
"we are achieving all this growth without paying a dime to any of the labels"
They could then use the data gained from (infringing) streaming/uploads as a bargaining chip while negotiating the license.