Since I started taking classes at St. Olaf college 3 years ago, there has not been one professor that has not used some sort of audiovisual aid during the course. I am a political science major, and the trends of using videos is no different in the humanities. For example in my Russian and Eurasian politics class, we studied the relations between the Soviet Union and its satellite states today, and the use of Youtube videos and documentary films were instrumental in giving us a better understanding of the situation. The use of videos in education has become a norm to address the needs of various types of learners as well as to complement the various tools and sources at the disposal of the professors.

Videos are not used solely in the classroom, they are assigned as homework and part of the syllabus and the “reading list” of most if not all courses you have to take to get a bachelor today. Audiovisual materials also compose a large part of the library. Archival footage for example is an essential part of a history major curriculum.

In 2009, the Motion Picture Industry began to lobby the Obama Administration to narrow the treaty to "print disabilities" only, and to eliminate deaf persons as beneficiaries. By 2010, the Obama Administration took a hard line in the WIPO negotiations, backed upon by the European Union, to narrow the treaty, excluding deaf persons. This was designed to overcome political opposition from the MPAA, and the USPTO said the compromise on beneficiaries was necessary for the text to move forward. In November 2010, the WIPO SCCR agreed to separate the more "mature" issues of visually impaired and reading disabilities from "other disabilities" in its negotiations. In June 2011, a new committee sponsored negotiating text for this treaty (SCCR/24/9) defined beneficiaries in such a way that deaf persons were excluded.

From 1985 to 2011, the various treaty proposals all would have covered any copyrighted work, including, for example SCCR/23/7, the text published in December 2011. But shortly after the MPAA was able to remove deaf persons as beneficiaries, they lobbied the Obama Administration to remove audiovisual works from the text. The Obama Administration proposed this formally in June 2012, and in December 2012, there was a deal to eliminate audiovisual works from the text, in order to get an agreement to hold a diplomatic conference in June 2013. Since nothing is set in stone in the negotiation, that decision can be changed, but it will probably require a change of position in the Obama White House, which has threatened to block the treaty if audiovisual works are included.

We fully support a Treaty that facilitates access to published works in the form of text, notation and/or related illustrations for the blind and print disabled to address the book famine wherein the blind and print disabled have access to less than five percent of published works worldwide.

The Treaty must achieve two overarching goals: creating exceptions and limitations in copyright law which allow published works to be converted into formats accessible to the blind and print disabled, and permitting accessible copies of published works to be shared across international borders.

Ultimately, we believe it should be for signatories to determine how they will implement the Treaty in accordance with their legal and administrative traditions. We underscore that this important Treaty must not be a vehicle for extraneous agendas. The goal remains, as it has been since the outset, a meaningful treaty to create greater access to published works for the visually impaired.

4. Ensure that the treaty will be fully consistent with international copyright norms.
5. Avoid addressing extraneous copyright issues not directly related to creating greater access to published works for the blind and print disabled.

The White House position, however, may be inconsistent with the U.S. proposal in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) and existing obligations in the KoreaU.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS) and other free trade agreements to which the United States is a party. This demonstrates the danger of including in international agreements rigid provisions that do not accommodate technological development.

KORUS obligates the United States and Korea to adopt provisions concerning the technological protection measures based on section 1201 of the DMCA. Furthermore, KORUS mandates that the parties "confine exceptions and limitations" to the circumvention prohibition to a specific list of exceptions that matches the specific exceptions in the DMCA. Cell phone unlocking, of course, is not on that list. KORUS does allow for administrative procedures like the DMCA's rule-making to adopt temporary exemptions, but not permanent ones. The challenge before Congress is to devise a permanent exception for cell phone unlocking that does not breach the obligations under KORUS and other similar free trade agreements.

The draft text for TPP is secret, but the U.S. proposal for the IP chapter was leaked two years ago. The leaked proposal contained KORUS's closed list of exceptions. Because TPP is currently under negotiation, there still is time to make sure that the TPP does not prevent national governments, including the United States, from amending their laws to permit the unlocking of cell phones and other wireless devices.

Today after a short plenary session, the informal negotiations were scheduled to begin behind closed doors again. But WIPO decided to permit NGOs attending the negotiations to follow a live audio of the discussions, subject to a ban on the use of the Internet and related social media to report on the negotiations.

The ban specifically singled out "twitter, blogs, news reports, and email lists" and extends to social media in general.

I assume we will be permitted to report and comment in other ways that do not rely upon this audio feed, but people will be careful because there is now a threat to cut off that access if the the forbidden information starts showing up on the Internet, and it maybe difficult to persuade people that the audio feed was not the source. This means less information will be disseminated, including the reports from the relatively accessible negotiators, of which there are many who are willing to talk in the breaks. These bans on the use of social media are increasingly being sought by transparency averse negotiators, particularly when pursuing anti-consumer and anti-freedom policies.

We ask that the White House ask the Librarian of Congress to rescind this decision, and failing that, champion a bill that makes unlocking permanently legal.

Motorola's cease and desist letter didn't claim that I was illegally distributing their copyrighted software. Instead, it claimed that I was "distributing software ... for the purpose of circumventing the protection measures" associated with their copyrighted software. There is a subtle but meaningful difference.

The DMCA includes anti-circumvention provisions that are intended to protect music and movie owners who want to distribute their work digitally, but are afraid of piracy. The provisions prohibit anyone from circumventing the locks that control access to copyrighted works. For example, DVDs are protected by a Digital Rights Management (DRM) system that attempts to prevent anyone from easily making copies of movies. The DMCA prohibits circumventing that type of protection system.

But unlocking a phone has nothing to do with copyright infringement, and using the DMCA to prosecute unlocking cell phones is not what the law was intended for. If Motorola's interpretation of the DMCA were valid, companies would be able to create simple software security mechanisms that legally prevent a customer from using a device in any way except that in which the manufacturer intended.

Instead of planning for a broad reform that would break away with full-on repression of cultural practices based on sharing and remixing, the Commission is setting up a parody of a debate. 75% of the participants to the working-group concerning “users” are affiliated with the industry and the themes and objectives are defined so as to ensure that the industry has its way and that nothing will change. Through this initiative, the EU Commission shows its contempt of the many citizens who participated in defeating ACTA and are still mobilized against repressive policies.

La Quadrature du Net is registered to participate in a working-group of the new “Licences for Europe” initiative called “User-Generated Content”. Everything in its name, theme and mission is biased to fit the views of the entertainment industry – which represents more than 3/4 of the participants! – The working group is meant to focus on “User-Generated Content”, as if works created by Internet users were a different category from “real” cultural works; as if today, everyone was not on an equal footing to participate in culture. The Commission's framing of discussion is subservient to major industrial actors who keep attacking their users' cultural practices and ignore the urgent need to reform copyright.

The working group is supposed to work only on licensing – contracts by the industry in which it controls everything – rather than discuss new exceptions to copyright, which would represent the general interest by allowing not-for-profit sharing and remixing of digital works.

Attendee asks, who gives a licence for mining the Internet?

"Arguably, locking phone users into one carrier is not at all what the DMCA was meant to do. It's up to the courts to decide."

These are welcome but hardly revolutionary -- more a matter of dragging UK copyright law into the 21st century. They include:

a private copying exception that lets people make copies of content they have bought, but only for their personal use;

simpler rules for using copyright material in the education sector;

permission for the limited quotation of copyright works for any purpose, as long as the source is acknowledged;

a limited copying exception for parody, caricature and pastiche;

a research and private study exception;

permission to use published research results for data analysis, but only if it is for non-commercial purposes;

permission for people with disabilities to obtain copyright works in an accessible form if there is none on the market;

archiving and preservation exceptions, designed for museums, galleries and libraries;

wider exceptions for public bodies to share some third-party information online.

This ridiculous approach, which will inevitably be ignored by most people as they continue to turn to "alternative" channels to access material they have paid for, is a consequence of the 2001 European Copyright Directive (the European equivalent of the DMCA), which places limits on what the UK government may do in the area of TPMs.

The fact that the UK government is being forced to adopt such a manifestly impractical solution to DRM's override of the proposed copyright exceptions is a stark reminder of the effect other treaties like ACTA and TPP would have, since these too will oblige all signatories to adopt certain minimum legal requirements for copyright and other areas whether or not they think them reasonable or wise. Indeed, it's clear that the copyright maximalists have shifted their attention to such multilateral treaties because they neatly circumvent democratic discussions that can happen within individual nations, substituting instead secret negotiations behind closed doors that members of the public can't even follow, much less influence.

Given these constraints, the UK government has perhaps done the best it could as far as DRM is concerned. The same could be said about the rest of the proposals. None of them is radical or revolutionary, but the fight that it has taken to get them is a reflection of the extraordinary success the copyright companies have had in blocking even the mildest attempt to update copyright legislation in the UK and make it fit for the digital age.

The UK government has stated that it wants to bring the new exceptions into force by October 2013. After all these years, that day cannot come soon enough.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

The directive outlines 21 different optional exceptions or limitations to the right of reproduction of copyrighted works. Each country implementing the directive can choose to either include or leave out the exception clause. This gives us 2,097,152 different ways to implement the directive.

Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations to the reproduction right provided for in Article 2 in the following cases: [...]

[...] in respect of reproductions on any medium made by a natural person for private use and for ends that are neither directly nor indirectly commercial, on condition that the rightholders receive fair compensation which takes account of the application or non-application of technological measures referred to in Article 6 to the work or subject matter concerned;

1. Can the home-copying exception be interpreted so that the exception applies to all copies, regardless of whether the original was an authorized source? Or does the exception only apply to copies, which are derived from an original, which does not infringe copyright itself?
2a. Can the three-step test be used to expand the scope of the exception to include all copies?
2b. Is the Dutch construct – where downloading from any source is legal – in conflict with EU law? Would it help to mention that feasible technical tools to counter the making of private copies is not yet available, which may influence your decision regarding the three-step test? [...]

I find it remarkable that Court contemplates a compensation paid for downloading copyright protected works from an illegal source, but that this does entail that the act of copying of this content is permissible under law. In my opinion, there are simply just two options: either it is permissible to make private copies from an illegal source and we pay the levy, or it is illegal and we don’t pay the levy. I do not agree with the current system either, though, where downloading from illegal sources is permissible but no levies are charged over this.

The act of copying all this news material is protected under a federal copyright agreement signed in 1976. That was in reaction to a challenge to a news assembly project started by Vanderbilt University in 1968.

nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the reproduction by lending of a limited number of copies and excerpts by a library or archives of an audiovisual news program subject to [a few other clauses concerning archives]...

Indeed, in the early days of the archive, CBS had sued for copyright infringement, claiming that broadcasts could not be recorded without the permission of the networks. At the time of the lawsuit, Congress was in the process of revising the copyright law. Congress recognized the growing importance and influence of television media on American culture, thought, and politics, and felt that news broadcasts should have special protection under the copyright law, to allow the American people access to their own history. Senator Howard Baker of Tennessee introduced an amendment to the 1976 U.S. Copyright Act to give universities and archives the right to record news broadcasts off-air and to make a limited number of copies for research purposes. Following the enactment of the new law with this provision, CBS and Vanderbilt mutually withdrew from the lawsuit.

Part of the difficulty in contesting this view is that there is also very little research showing that exceptions are important, especially for driving economic growth. That makes a new report called "Excepting the Future" (pdf), commissioned by the Australian Digital Alliance, and pointed out to us by @MsLods, a particularly important contribution to the debate.

It starts by explaining why traditional copyright, devised in an analogue world, is no longer working:

digital content cannot be handled without copying it. Thus in the digital world, the distinction between handling and copying a work has completely broken down. All handling of digital content, however helpful to society or rights holders, may prima facie be a breach of copyright, attracting liability to rights holders if they have not permitted it.

Australia's current copyright system is ill-equipped to cope with key Internet activities like search and indexing, caching and hosting, since they all involve incidental copying. Theoretically, companies providing those services ought to seek licensing agreements with copyright holders to avoid infringement. The report calculates how much time and money would be required to do that in the case of search engines:

If the 170 search engines listed at www.philb.com/webse.htm transacted with all 3.8 million Australian domain name registrants [to obtain permission to allow their sites to be indexed], it would involve 645 million transactions. If each transaction took 9.5 hours [to allow for multiple communications and checks by the site regarding rights], then, at average weekly wages, the transaction costs would exceed $150 billion a year. And that is just for the Australian domain names.

Of course, these figures can, and probably will, be contested by those ideologically against copyright exceptions. But it's a start, and a welcome one in the context of the prevalent assumption that more copyright equates to more economic benefit.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Canada passed a law in June that sets a new standard of permissiveness. It caps statutory damages if copyright is breached for non-commercial purposes. It expands the definition of “fair dealing” (“fair use” in America) and creates exemptions for educational purposes and for parody. Firms must pass warnings about infringement to the person who posted the material rather than immediately take the content down themselves. This contrasts with practice in America and Europe, where a web company alerted to infringing material must remove it. This encourages knee-jerk responses to complaints.

Britain too plans to introduce internet-friendly legislation this autumn after a review led by Ian Hargreaves, professor of digital economy at Cardiff University. As with Canada’s law, the recommended new code entails exemptions for non-commercial uses and user-generated content. Also mooted is a “digital copyright exchange” that would establish a marketplace for copyright. A musician could list her song and the licensing terms. A filmmaker wanting to use it would know quickly and simply what to do.

Members shall confine limitations and exceptions to exclusive rights to (Step 1) certain special cases (Step 2) which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and (Step 3) do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rights holder

Article QQ.G.16: Limitations and Exceptions

[US:
1. [US/AU: With respect to this Article [(Article 4 on copyright) and Article 5 and 6 (which deal with copyright and related rights section and the related rights section)], each Party shall confine limitations or exceptions to exclusive rights to certain special cases that do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work, performance, or phonogram, and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder.]

2. Subject to and consistent with paragraph (1), each Party shall seek to achieve an appropriate balance in providing limitations or exceptions, including those for the digital environment, giving due consideration to legitimate purposes such as, but no limited to, criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research.92]

[NZ/CL/MY/BN/VN propose; AU/US oppose93: 1. Each party may provide for limitations and exceptions to copyrights, related rights, and legal protections for technological protections measures and rights management information included in this Chapter, in accordance with its domestic laws and relevant international treaties that each are party to.]

[US/AU propose: With respect to this Article and Articles 5 and 6, each party shall confine limitations or exceptions to exclusive rights to certain special cases that do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work, performance or phonogram, and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder.]

2. [NZ/CL/MY/BN/VN propose; US/AU oppose: Paragraph 1 permits a party to carry forward and appropriately extend into the digital environment limitations and exceptions in its domestic laws. Similarly, these provisions permit a Party to devise new] [US/AU propose; NZ/CL/MY/BN/VN oppose: its understood that each party may, consistent with the foregoing, adopt or maintain] exceptions and limitations for the digital environment.]

---
92 [US: For purposes of greater clarity, a use that has commercial aspects may in appropriate circumstances be considered to have a legitimate purpose under paragraph 2]
93 Negotiator’s Note: SG/PE: Can accept both versions of paragraph 1.

Dear Congress: WHY IS THIS NEGOTIATING TEXT KEEP SECRET FROM THE PUBLIC?

Leaks are hard to come by, and do not invite as much scrutiny as official versions that are shared with the public.

• facilitate legitimate use of copyright works to create and deliver new products and services of public benefit; and
• allow legitimate non-commercial use of copyright works for uses on the internet such as social networking.

‘…exceptions deliver economic growth...’

Wrong. Exceptions remove the core asset value of the creative work and so reduce incentives for creators for greater economic activity. An exception may benefit the public sector, but that has to be weighed against the loss of revenue to the creative sector of the economy. Far better for the Government to examine ways of modernising copyright licensing that incentivise digital businesses and creators together, so that consumers pay a fair price and creators receive a fair reward and incentive.

For example, the main document of the UK government's consultation on copyright (pdf) devotes no less than 65 pages to the area, proposing exceptions for private copying, preservation by libraries and archives, research and private study, text and data mining, parody, news reporting, and use by the disabled, among others.

On the other side of the globe, during the Melbourne round of the secret TPP negotiations, a group of high-powered tech companies have been urging the inclusion of copyright exceptions as part of that treaty. As Sean Flynn explains:

the Computers and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) -- representing tech companies like Google, Facebook, E-Bay and Yahoo -- has been circulating a new proposal for adding copyright limitations and exceptions to "permit the smooth functioning of the Internet." It is incredibly well researched and supported and includes some good ideas. My favorite among them is a proposal for mandatory flexible limitations and exceptions to copyright in every system:

"Such exceptions and limitations shall permit the utilization of works and other subject-matter to the extent justified by the purpose of free expression (including commentary, criticism, and news reporting), participation in the cultural life of the community, transformative use, teaching, research, scholarship, personal use, and the functioning of, and innovation in, the digital environment, provided that such utilization is consistent with fair practice."

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Of course, that's an eminently sensible thing to do, not least because it wouldn't require a radical overhaul of European copyright, just some tinkering at the edges. Despite that, the idea is likely to meet stiff resistance -- and not just from the industry dinosaurs that reflexively resist any change that might reverse the copyright ratchet by even a few degrees.

At a time when the European Commission is hell-bent on getting ACTA ratified by the European Parliament, it won't take kindly to national governments going their own way on exceptions. That's particularly the case since the Commission is also drafting a new directive specifically designed to harmonize EU copyright law.

The Dutch government will be well aware of all those countervailing pressures, which makes this unexpected move all the more bold. Let's hope it inspires other EU countries to lend their weight to this much-needed initiative to make European copyright laws fit for the digital age.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

We therefore recommend below that the Government should press at EU level for the introduction of an exception allowing uses of a work enabled by technology which do not directly trade on the underlying creative and expressive purpose of the work (this has been referred to as “non-consumptive” use). The idea is to encompass the uses of copyright works where copying is really only carried out as part of the way the technology works. For instance, in data mining or search engine indexing, copies need to be created for the computer to be able to analyse; the technology provides a substitute for someone reading all the documents. This is not about overriding the aim of copyright – these uses do not compete with the normal exploitation of the work itself – indeed, they may facilitate it. Nor is copyright intended to restrict use of facts. That these new uses happen to fall within the scope of copyright regulation is essentially a side effect of how copyright has been defined, rather than being directly relevant to what copyright is supposed to protect.

The Government will therefore bring forward proposals in autumn 2011 for a substantial opening up of the UK’s copyright exceptions regime on this basis. This will include proposals for a limited private copying exception; to widen the exception for noncommercial research, which should also cover both text- and data-mining to the extent permissible under EU law.

If publishers lost the ability to manage access to allow content mining, three things would happen. First, the platforms would collapse under the technological weight of crawler-bots. Some technical specialists liken the effects to a denial-of-service attack; others say it would be analogous to a broadband connection being diminished by competing use. Those who are already working in partnership on data mining routinely ask searchers to “throttle back” at certain times to prevent such overloads from occurring. Such requests would be impossible to make if no-one had to ask permission in the first place.

Then there is the commercial risk. It is all very well allowing a researcher to access and copy content to mine if they are, indeed, a researcher. But what if they are not? What if their intention is to copy the work for a directly competing-use; what if they have the intention of copying the work and then infringing the copyright in it? Sure they will still be breaking the law, but how do you chase after someone if you don’t know who, or where, they are? The current system of managed access allows the bona fides of miners to be checked out. An exception would make such checks impossible.

Which leads to the third risk. Britain would be placing itself at a competitive disadvantage in the European & global marketplace if it were the only country to provide such an exception (oh, except the Japanese and some Nordic countries). Why run the risk of publishing in the UK, which opens its data up to any Tom, Dick & Harry, not to mention the attendant technical and commercial risks, if there are other countries which take a more responsible attitude.

In coming to its recommendation on content mining, the [Hargreaves] Review drew heavily on the views of various strands of academia, most of which claimed that their vital research was being hampered by the lack of such an exception. The process of requesting licences of publishers was too time-consuming, it was claimed, and so an exception would make life easier.

Copyright is necessary to allow authors to live from their trade and to guarantee their independence, and exceptions should be decided by authors and publishers, according to panellists on a copyright dialogue held at the World Intellectual Property Organization this week.

The very idea that "exceptions should be decided by authors and publishers" betrays the deep-seated arrogance and contempt that both of these now have for their readers. And that's all part and parcel of the publishing industry's problems: it sees readers as the enemy, something that must be fought and vanquished in order for it to be forced to buy books on the terms of authors and publishers - forced, if necessary, by ever-more Draconian laws that criminalise willy-nilly.

I know you're wrong because the music industry as represented by the majors is still coining it and the music industry as rep'd by you is getting by, struggling, working part time or making music as a hobby.

Less than 10% of signed artists recoup. Take Maximo Park for example. They have by their own admission never made a penny from record sales and make their money from DJ sets in the main. An example I have first hand knowledge of, Embrace, have sold millions of albums, they were a genuinely massive band; they performed from Glastonbury main-stage to Top Of The Pops and everywhere in-between. When they split from Virgin, they owed their label three quarters of a million pounds. I guess my point is that if we promote the Trad Music Biz's model as "The model" then the message we'd be sending is:

• less than one percent of musical artists are part of the music business
• only a tenth of those will recoup and make money from their record sales, and that's good
• an artist should be saddled with debt, the rate at which they pay that back is equivalent to a credit card with a 900% interest rate

Hope and Social believe in and benefit from Pay What You Want. We go on about this here, but also... As musicians, we all have the ability to take advantage of the same channels that H&S have:

• dramatically reduced costs of recording
• a zero cost of distribution (should we choose to make mp3s available on the internet then there's no cost to us. This is miles away from the Trad model where the cost of recording and manufacture made it nigh on impossible to record and release independently)
• reduced cost of promotion (CD's don't need to be sent to reviewers, press etc at the cost of a quid per CD, and half again on postage)
• and by building relationships with people, they become our PRs, our evangelists (to coin another religious term, man I've got to stop doing that)

Also, there is a value in making your music available for free. If someone downloads an album of ours and shares it with a friend, copies the CD, plays it at a party, then that's how we share and have our music heard by more people. This results in:

• higher gig attendances
• better paid shows
• more sales of our music
• more sales on other merchandise and art that we, and our fans make.

These comments will focus on the language in the Consolidated Text that we believe the U.S. government has endorsed. While the United States probably could comply with these provisions of the Consolidated Text without amending the U.S. Copyright Act, these provisions are inconsistent with U.S. law in several significant, troubling respects. The common thread of these inconsistencies is that the Consolidated Text does not reflect the balance in U.S. copyright law. This lack of balance is at odds with the Obama Administration's policy concerning balanced international copyright law

Although the existing statutory damages framework has a chilling effect on innovation and follow-on creativity, its negative impact in the U.S. is somewhat mitigated by the existence of strong exceptions such as the fair use doctrine. Other countries, however, do not have these exceptions. And the U.S. in ACTA has not demanded the adoption of these exceptions. In other words, the U.S. seeks the export of our strong enforcement mechanisms but not our strong exceptions.

This asymmetric export of our laws could be particularly harmful to U.S. Internet companies as they attempt to expand their operations overseas. For example, U.S. courts have treated the copying of copyrighted material by search engines as permitted by fair use. In contrast, courts in Europe have found Google and other search engines liable for copyright infringement for engaging in similar activities. If ACTA is adopted, and European countries enact statutory damages, the potential exposure of U.S. search engines will increase exponentially for conduct considered lawful in the U.S. They will be liable not just for the actual damages they cause, but the level of damages set by statute. Under current U.S. law, if a company is held liable under a direct or secondary liability theory for infringements by thousands of consumers, the resulting damages (up to $150,000 multiplied by thousands of works deemed infringing) could easily bankrupt the company. Raising the possibility of similar, ruinous damages for conduct considered lawful in the U.S. would simply hinder U.S. businesses' ability to operate abroad.

There are numerous problems with these two clauses of footnote 47. First, they suggest that inducement is a different test from contributory infringement; that is, they imply that there are three theories for third party infringement under copyright -- vicarious liability, inducement, and contributory infringement. However, Grokster makes clear that inducement is not separate and distinct from contributory infringement.

Finally, article 2.18.3 lacks the balance present in U.S. third party liability law. Article 2.18.3 makes third party liability mandatory. In contrast, exceptions to such third party liability are only permissive: "the application of third party liability may include consideration of exceptions or limitations...."