Calling a turd "transparency regulation" instead of "intellectual property" is just changing the name of the same thing.

Under any copyleft type of regime, even if you remove copyright and replace with some other enabling law, you're still using legal controls to enforce rights management of bits and bytes.

Not the same thing. The copyleft hack on copyright is enforced by copyright holders, thus property (or whatever word wishes to use if not "property") based. Other easily imagined mechanisms for forcing transparency/source revelation would have no relation to copyright nor any other kind of property; I wouldn't call them copyleft any more than I'd call forced transparency in other domains (e.g., finance) copyleft.

Such would still be "using legal controls" (or more broadly "using policy controls", as in the case of procurement, which could be private) but not necessarily to "enforce rights management of bits and bytes". The legal controls could be for example around certification of a product: no source, no certification, no legally selling product. In that case the bits and bytes independent of a product on the market would be unregulated, not subject to forced transparency.

> The legal controls could be for example around certification of a product: no source, no certification, no legally selling product.

GPL forbids giving away infringing code as well.

Does your proposed regulatory regime also encompass forcing all open-source and hobby coders to get one of your licenses before they can enable the "download as ZIP" feature on their GitHub?

Could, probably wouldn't. Just as consumer, competition, procurement and other regulation typically doesn't cover hobbyists. I'd call that a feature -- more effective enforcement for commercial entities, hobbyists can ignore. Contrast with copyright hack, applies to all, commercial entities can ignore without consequence.