The issue they're talking about here has to do with artists affiliated with multiple rights-holders, causing a big increase in costs to stay legal, trying to play their music in an establishment.
I'm no expert on this, but I did play in a local band once and got a taste of the music licensing "scene". Bars and other smaller venues NEVER liked paying these rights-holders, because the entire thing felt like little more than a money-grab. It's one thing if you set up a digital jukebox at your bar that makes the patrons pay for each song they want to hear. Then you can offload the costs on them. But most places just wanted to have music playing in the background, such as your corner bar where the bartenders act as the DJs, playing the CDs they think set the right mood for the establishment.
It's exponentially worse when you have these artists who might have signed deals so one of their songs' rights were sold to a movie studio to use in a movie, another is getting streamed from a site that paid for rights to do that with it, and maybe a whole album they released contains those tracks in a shared arrangement plus the rights-holder who released the album holding rights to the rest of it.
Now, the bar or restaurant plays the CD of music and suddenly, they owe ALL these people a cut as the tracks 1 - 13 play in sequence from it.
How many people can listen to your music you're playing at home before it constitutes commercial use of it you owe rights' holders for? I've sure been at house parties in the past that had more people there than my local corner bar did! It's all pretty arbitrary and they just go after commercial establishments because that's the easier money to milk.