They are not changing the Law...they are complying with the Law...It plainly says there are factors to be considered In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use. Merriam-Webster, by posting the info I showed you, say that fair use, in their case, does not apply...you need permission....<quoted text>
We've already been over this, thief.
The US code defines fair use in section 107 of the copyright law. As the copyright office correctly notes, "The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law."
Merriam-Webster cannot change that. But they can do a fine job of summarizing what that means:
By placing a copyright notice on their publication, Merriam-Webster has agreed, in writing, to the limitations of copyright protection, of which one -- of several -- is fair use.
Repeating your dishonest doesn't make it so; it just reaffirms you moral bankruptcy.
You ain't got permission...