That's debatable. Some people don't see energy as "physical" - your hard drive doesn't change, only it's magnetic properties do. And then there's illegitimate access to information. If a private road owner, for example, sets up a device that reads all visitors' smart-phone signals (or, in a sci-fi scenario, their brainwaves!) without their permission, that might not constitute a crime in absence of recognition of negative IP rights.
While it is true that people have different standards for the respect of property rights, and libertarianism does not provide a single form of property recognition outside of self ownership, energy is a property of the physical universe, and thus a physical form of property manipulation when someone deletes your files. It contrasts to the notion of IP because IP claims ownership over an IDEA and any physical manifestation of the idea, despite who owns the physical stuff which the idea is expressed through, no matter how 'arcane' or specialized the property may be.
Illegitimate access to information is twofold: You may have an ethical authority to determine the use of your property, but an EFFECTIVE creation of privacy and protection of sensitive data requires that you invest the time/energy/resources to create that security. There is no expectation to privacy on par with a 'right'. Constitutionally, the government is supposed to recognize this, but there is no reason to assume to trust someone who claims to represent the government, either.
These are real problems which require market action to build conventions in contract so that invasive behaviors that advance the occurrence of fraud are put down before they get out of control.
And I think a lot of them would, as charter cities, corporations, business alliances, etc would find it in their best interest to become members of contractually-based IP recognition authorities. My only disagreement with IP advocates is that it isn't a universal Natural Right to impose those IP recognition obligations by default.
I am in complete agreement here. This assumption of universally encompassing dictated "conventions" against the will and consent of individuals is a huge source of conflict, and implies that people would not choose a form of IP that best satisfied the interests of the participants. Advocates of democracy tend to be severely naive on the subject by ignoring consent. Socialists take it a step further and ignore the untenability of enforcement and market incentive to profit from ideas.
If GPL functions to rob people of the freedom to develop similar ideas, then it is no better than existing copyright law.