> No, you only get to delete copies you have control over.
> so keeping a personal copy of something you saw online is an infringing act.

In other words, I'm right that you think that more than issuing content on licences that are revocable, allowing a person to instantly revoke all licences and be in their rights to totally withdraw something from circulation and speech in society, you go much further than contractual controls over speech and culture - you make it a moral right! you said:

>> Destruction of a work I retain the copyright on is part of my [moral] right.

I am not totally against moral rights, by the way. I do know exactly what they are, and am not from the US, or France, both of which see them slightly differently than here, the UK. But that's irrelevant. I agree with you about correct attribution. Note that misleading attribution is really not so bad. People lie all the time, and where lies cause damage, we have laws in place for that - e.g. contractual misrepresentation/negligent misstatement, fraud, libel. Why add a super-powerful moral right, capable of reaching through space and time, and activateable at your wish, for all of time (I assume if you want that right to be enforceable, you're saying it should be assignable to someone after your death, and theirs, ad infinitum)?

You forget that every citizen with a computer (including a smartphone) is now a publisher. Copyright law is very, very complex, and that's fine if it only affected professional publishers, as it once did, and helped create a market capable of self-regulating copying. But all of that has changed, hugely, now. Are you really considering my moral rights when you cite my post in the one you just published?

Furthermore, copyright is a bundle of rights that reaches through space and time to control how people communicate, and also how your digital devices (your own property) can interact (DRM, region controls, etc). For it to exist, we have to sacrifice, for the copyright term, rights to free communication, to efficient cultural diffusion, cheap education, cheap and simple factual accuracy (since things must be paraphrased, incriminating emails cannot be reproduced, etc). We chose to do that, but our legislators perhaps forgot about that sacrifice every time they extended copyright. Have a read of the economists' amicus curiae brief in Eldred v Ashcroft (supreme court) to see what Coase, Friedman, Arrow, Varian, Akerloff, Buchanan et al thought about just the economic aspect of it (let alone my points just now about nonmarket efficiency and rights to free and efficient speech).

>Basically what you're saying is other creators content should be free (libre+gratis) for me because I think what I'm doing is right. IMO that's not your call.

Basically, that's not at all what I have ever said or felt. See above where I said that new content should be created - even with all rights from copyright as it is - under an OPT OUT implied statutory license for NON-COMMERCIAL, ATTRIBUTED and SHARE ALIKE use. (I think this covers your next question, too, by removing the strawman you based it on)

> Shall we do trademark infringement now too .. Reocities is almost certainly infringing there too, if the owners have a lot of money I could see a RTM troll picking up the mark and going to town.

I'm sorry, what's your point here. That Reocities is bad, or that IP laws are on many occasions very negative things indeed?