(I'll say in advance that I'm afraid I have not read the entire book yet - so if this is covered already somewhere, I apologize)
One of the things that annoys me most in the world of copyright is when rightsholders start asserting their rights for moral reasons - choosing whether or not to allow certain uses, or how much to charge for them, based on whether or not they "like" what's being done or who's doing it.
This is of course not the purpose of copyright in the U.S., but it can still be weilded in that way. My question has two parts. One - do you think it's valid to call this a form of "copyfraud" as well? It's not claiming rights you don't have, but it is exercising rights in a way that distorts their purpose.
Two - is there a way to prevent it? Obviously compulsory licenses are one way, but as you say in the book they are not the norm. So assuming rightsholders retain the ability to grant or deny licenses, is there a way copyright law could go beyond simply not granting them moral rights, and actually prevent them from using copyright in that manner? Licensing decisions should be economic, not moral. Similarly, if a defendant argued in court that they were being sued for infringment based entirely on the creator attempting to assert moral rights - essentially applying copyright in a discriminatory fashion - is there any chance they would have a case?