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.

Choose your answer: based on the paragraph above can we conclude that "The petitioners are a group of mostly women that have estabilshed the limit works"?

Choices:
[+] Yes;
[+] It's impossible to say;
[+] No;
I think the answer is
It's impossible to say