https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license
If they don't like it, they should change the law, rather than ask the courts to make up new laws for people to follow on the spot.
There is no compulsory license for sound recordings in any territory for downloads or interactive streaming. You have to explicit permission from the copyright owner to make the recording available for download or interactive streaming, i.e. you can choose when to listen to it.
There is a compulsory license in most territories for the composition side, under certain specific conditions, in which an entity like Grooveshark would obtain a mechanical license for the composition from the copyright holder of the composition (usually music publishers) in advance of its public availability, and then account and pay royalties for its use. This requires Grooveshark to know the songwriters, publishers, and splits of each work, which is not something that comes from the user uploads. It may be the case that their terms of use pass this responsibility to the uploader.
In short, however, you need sets of permission (sound recording and composition) to legally distribute music for download or interactive streaming.
I realize that there are a lot of lawsuits alleging that, but as far as I know they are all still pending and nothing of the sort has been established in court. That makes your statement premature, at best.
Personally, I put about as much stock those claims as SCO's claims that we should all write them $699 checks for Linux, but we'll find out whenever the courts rule.
Feel free to supply a Pacer link if the situation changes.