A reasonable question. They are reconciled by narrowly observing that the clause "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" describes a specific publ

A reasonable question. They are reconciled by narrowly observing that the clause "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" describes a specific public interest. You can also narrowly observe that there is no specific enumeration of what comprises an "exclusive Right". Stallman also (used to?) advocate for "media taxes" and to paraphrase that idea and draw it to its conclusion for the contemporary environment: This would be something like a tax on IP traffic, an enforceable right of verifiable authentication, and a disbursing of those tax revenues to popular Authors and Inventors based on some formula settled by Congress. Such would be radically different from what we have. It would not preclude the freedom to share. It would be consistent with the Constitutional mandate if it genuinely encouraged Authors and Inventors to publish. It would be especially attentive to the purpose ("To promote...") of the regulatory power ("limited Times ... exclusive Right"). Beyond the narrow readings, you can look at (for example) the correspondence between Jefferson and Hamilton and its historic legislative and jurisprudence context. Exclusivity of publication was only grudgingly added to the powers of Congress. It was added in part because of a historic pattern of several of the Colonies to establish a state-run monopoly on printing. It was added in part because of a then more current familiarity with the early economics of print and the role of patronage in inventing. The early US copyright and patent laws make far less sense, given how they were argued for, in the current technological climate. Substitutes - even radical substitutes like a "media tax" - would seem to better fit the goals the founders were trying to achieve (if we can judge that by their own writings).