Fair use has always been a thing in the US.

The US constitutions allows congress to limit the freedom of the press with these words: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

This has no room for fuck you, I got mine. Framing the abolition of fair use as enforcing copyright is an absolute lie.

The view of copyright as some sort of absolute property right that can be exercised against the public is a far right position. (I'd argue that's true for all property rights but that's a different subject.) What makes it far right is that it implies unfettered, heritable power for a small elite. Saying that everyone has an equal right to property, as such, is so inane that it is worthy only of ridicule. The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.

The NYT is suing for money. It owns the copyright to all those articles published in the last century; all already paid. Every cent licensing fee is pure profit for the owners; beautiful shareholder value. Benefit to society? Zero. But you have to enforce copyright. It's property! You wouldn't want some corporation to steal the cardboard boxes of the homeless.