"Thanks to its ease of operation, YouTube allows pretty much anyone with a mild curiosity about opera or musical theater to expand his frame of reference without spending a dime, thanks to the compulsive generosity of members with a desire to exhibit their curatorial prowess...On the opera front the easiest place to start is by typing in the name of a favorite singer. The most popular are represented in depth. Unsurprisingly, Maria Callas clips number more than 100, including lots of interviews and late-career concert performances but also a scene from the Lisbon â€œTraviataâ€ of 1958, immortalized by the playwright Terrence McNally."
The article proceeds to show embed eight (8) examples of YouTube content that definitely includes copyrighted or bootleg content.
Leaving aside the complete lack of curiosity about how the content got there (the word copyright does not appear in the article), I can't see how this does not expose the NY Times to liability also.
While I think You Tube is being disingenous in its use of DMCA at least it has theoretical protection; the NY Times does not have the same safe harbors available to it when it actively goes and selects copyrighted content to enhance its articles.
This anything goes attitude can't possible last. 2 years ago if someone writing an article for the NY times wanted to include full videos of performances in their articles, they would have definitely sought some type of permission from the rights holder. Nothing in DMCA changes those legal dynamics...