Music mogul Irving Azoff hit YouTube hard yesterday with a series of tweets aimed directly at the video sharing site.

He also announced the formation of a broad coalition of 500 artists that included Taylor Swift, Bruce Springsteen, Pharrell and Pearl Jam, along with large rights holder organizations like ASCAP, BMI and SESAC and major labels like Universal and Warner.

So why is Azoff taking the fight to the popular video streaming site? Like most fights Azoff picks, the main motive is money and in this case, it’s the money Youtube pays artists for the revenue it generates selling ads against videos featuring an artist’s music.

YouTube is home to hundreds of thousands of music videos, everything from South Korean rapper Psy to bands like The Kills and Queens of the Stone Age. YouTube is also home to unlicensed videos that feature copyright-protected music, often posted by individuals with no affiliation to the artist.

Don’t want to spend $19.99 to download the Hamilton soundtrack sung by the original Broadway cast? Then stream it on YouTube — you can listen to the opening number here, the song “Aaron Burr, Sir” here and show stopper “Dear Theodosia” here. Want to hear the entire album? You can find all the songs compiled in a playlist here.

The availability of nearly all recorded music through YouTube infuriates the publishing and record industry, who say they are unfairly compensated by the video site, making far less than what’s paid by album sales, digital downloads and streaming services.

How can YouTube stream an artist’s music without their permission? Technically they can’t, but a law created by Congress in 1998 makes it very difficult to get one’s music off the site. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act essentially protects sites like YouTube from being sued out of existence. The law’s Safe Harbor Provision states that if an artist wants their copyrighted music taken off of YouTube, they need to send a takedown request, and by law YouTube must remove the copyrighted material from their site.

The problem with the law, Azoff argues, is that it is impossible for any artist or label to keep pace with the sheer size of the site. Some artists have to employ teams of lawyers and researchers just to monitor YouTube and send hundreds of takedown notices, a process Azoff calls a game of “whack-a-mole.”

According to Digital Music News, the amount of takedown notices the Google-owned site experiences is growing fast (emphasis by DMN):

“In 2014, Google reportedly processed a massive 345 million pirate-linking takedown requests.  But if you think that’s bad, 2015 was worse, with the number of takedown requests recorded at 560 million, a 60% increase in just one year. It gets even crazier: in November of last year, it was also reported that the search engine received more than 2 million takedown requests in one day, which equates to 1,500 infringement requests a minute.”

Azoff wants Congress to update the DMCA so that once a takedown notice is sent to YouTube, the song or copyrighted work never again reappears on the site. He argues that YouTube already has the technology to keep protected music off the site, technology the company says it already uses to protect and compensate artists.

YouTube’s ContentID technology can help labels and artists identify copyrighted music and gives artists the right to remove the material or collect revenue from its use. YouTube has paid out $3 billion in royalties to artists since introducing the system, a figure Azoff calls a pittance when spread between millions of artists.

Many in the tech industry oppose Azoff’s plan, arguing it gives labels and rights holders too much power. In an open letter titled “Irving Azoff: YouTube Doesn’t Need to Change, the Music Industry Does,” Fortune writer Mathew Ingram, explained that Azoff’s plan would overturn the long-standing Fair Use doctrine of copyright law, which protects material from infringement claims if the use is transformative.

“Azoff would no doubt prefer it if fair use didn’t exist,” Ingram wrote. “But it’s worth noting that while he complains about music not being taken down, YouTube also has a problem with the exact opposite: Namely, record labels and their representatives forcing the removal of content that they either don’t have the rights to or that are covered by fair use.”

Ingram argued that Azoff wants digital services like YouTube to make up all the money lost in the recording industry over the last decade. Azoff contends that he and his coalition want an update to a law created before YouTube with common sense reforms for the creator community.

“We ask you to enact sensible reform that balances the interests of creators with the interests of the companies who exploit music for their financial enrichment,” he wrote in an open letter to Congress. “It’s only then that consumers will truly benefit.”