General Olson, you say that the functional equivalent of an unlimited time would be a violation, but that's precisely the argument that's being made by petitioners here, that a limited time which is extendable is the functionable, functional equivalent of an unlimited time, a limited time that 10 years from now can be extended, and then extended again, and extended again. Why -- their argument is precisely that, a limited time doesn't mean anything unless it means, once you have established the limit for works that have been created under that limit, that's the end.
The petitioners argue that a time limit that can be continuously extended is limited.
The petitioners are arguing the opposite. I think the system got it wrong because the context is confusingly and circularly worded.
( z1 argue :ARG0 ( z2 person :ARG0-of ( z3 petition ) ) :ARG1 ( z4 limit :ARG1 ( z5 limit :ARG1 ( z6 time ) :ARG1-of ( z7 extend :ARG1-of ( z8 possible ) :ARG1-of ( z9 continue ) ) ) ) )