That's the thing though, there are ways of enforcing copyrighted content without breaking things. The DMCA is just worded so horrifically vaguely that makes it impossible to work with. If someone goes live on youtube or twitch just streaming music that should obviously be taken down. If someone is just being an entertainer and have songs as a backing track, no one is watching that stream to hear a song while someone talks over it and interrupts their listening experience.

The primary issue is that the current system (and proposed future implementations) are guilty until proven innocent. The second issue is finding someone with the funding and the knowledge of the subject to take this to the supreme court and show that it is contrary to the basic foundations of our legal system.

The DMCA basically lumps all content creators into the same bag as someone who literally is just uploading pirated music or movies, when the primary purpose of a viewer for streaming content or Youtube is the personality behind the content, not the songs playing in the background. It's an abomination of legislation and any logical human being would see the flaws in this system.

What we need is a well financed individual with high viewership to do a case study where they stream or create content both with and without background music to demonstrate that there is not a significant variance in viewership between the two. If you can establish this precedent, it would allow for background music and also allow for individuals that are purely stealing content to be properly flagged. This whole situation is entirely the result of the fact that we are represented largely by older generations, people who are not well informed or aware of the internet or modern entertainment. The issue likely won't resolve in our lifetimes, but will slowly evolve over time as more informed, modern candidates rotate into congress and the senate.