You're reading it the other way around. Copyright is an abridgement of the first amendment right to publish anything you want, and it is only permitted as long as it exists to further science and the useful arts. Thus, it could be argued that copyright itself should not extend to the right of completely banning a work from being published, as it is hard to claim that promotes the progress of science.

So in essence, you could aim the current copyright law is inconsistent with the constitution.

I am not a legal scholar so I have no idea how naive this argument might be from a constitutional law perspective. I have a feeling it would be pretty naive, to be honest.

I just don't see how one could argue that "exclusive Right" means anything other than exclusive. The intent behind the copyright clause is that when authors have exclusive control over their work, they will be incentivized to produce more. When you start carving out exceptions to their exclusive right, well then it's open season on what control they have, as "exclusive" can no longer be interpreted as to mean the plain understanding of the word.

Let's move away from the Dr. Seuss example and look at another instance of where artists have used their exclusive right to restrict distribution of their work. In 2015 the Wu Tang Clan produced a single copy of their 7th album "Once Upon a Time in Shaolin". The album itself then went on a tour of its own and was showcased at museums until it was eventually sold to the infamous "Pharma Bro" Martin Shkreli for $2 million. The contract he had to sign included the following genius clause:

"The buying party also agrees that, at any time during the stipulated 88 year period, the seller may legally plan and attempt to execute one (1) heist or caper to steal back Once Upon A Time In Shaolin, which, if successful, would return all ownership rights to the seller. Said heist or caper can only be undertaken by currently active members of the Wu-Tang Clan and/or actor Bill Murray, with no legal repercussions." [1]

The legend behind this album has now birthed a forthcoming Netflix documentary [2]. So here is a situation where the author's exclusive control over their art has birthed not just a documentary, which is art, but a legal document which I would classify as art. None of this would be possible in a world where an author's exclusive copyright doesn't exist or could be infringed if they choose to restrict distribution of their work. So I would disagree with your conclusion that it's hard to claim that restricting the distribution of work doesn't "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".

[1]: https://gizmodo.com/bill-murray-can-legally-steal-the-2-mill...

[2]: https://www.engadget.com/netflix-martin-shkreli-wu-tang-albu...

Bank robberies produce an order of magnitude more art than a strange contract that happens to contain stipulations relating to exclusive distribution. That doesn’t mean we should perpetuate them.

Bank robberies are violence. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

I'm getting at your support for the claim that copyright fosters the creation of new art with a novelty contract that has a provision in it supposedly allowing for stealing the work back spawning content on it because of its notoriety, mostly because it has nothing to do with copyright.

The only reason the contract can exist is copyright. There are others arguing on this thread that if a rights holder restricts the distribution of their work they should effectively forfeit all control over their work. They have justified their position by saying restricting distribution fails to promote the creation of art. I’ve argued the opposite case and brought examples, and it all comes down to the phrase “exclusive rights” in the Copyright Clause of the US Constitution.