They are not presently in the public domain, therefore it is not seizing from the public domain. Rather, it is preventing from entering the public domain. There

They are not presently in the public domain, therefore it is not seizing from the public domain. Rather, it is preventing from entering the public domain. There is a difference. If you would like to claim they are "effectively" the same thing, then why would you choose a term that is different from, and exaggerates, reality? The answer is because you know there is a difference, but know the exaggerated form is more compelling, and you evidently don't have significant qualms with regard to misleading people using overly-sensationalist headlines in serious political matters. You accurately point out that this does not incentivize the creation of the works which have already been created. But the way it incentivizes new works is by showing that copyright is now protected and ensured by the government to a greater extent. Considering the impractically weak enforcement of copyright and subsequent rampant piracy of the Internet age, this can be viewed as compensatory. Those who would make copyrighted material now have more to gain from creating said copyrighted works, and they can also logically anticipate further possible improvements to the law in their favor as a result of this precedent. The article assures us so. But incentive to create works is not the only point of copyright law. Another point is simple justice: that a person who creates something deserves to have it as their intellectual property. Justice still has a place in the legislative decisions of the state, I hope.