nostr:nprofile1qqst0mtgkp3du662ztj3l4fgts0purksu5fgek5n4vgmg9gt2hkn9lqpypmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuetfde6kuer6wasku7nfvuh8xurpvdjj7qghwaehxw309aex2mrp0yhxz7n6v9kk7tnwv46z7pxxtmh I think this logic breaks with Kinsellas IP. Example:

A breaks into B’s garage and discovers stolen bicycles. A calls C to inform them about the bicycles.

A: clearly violates property rights

C: however not, he just received information (IP), which he can then use as e wishes. That means C can use it as evidence or clue.

Or would you still disagree here? :)

nostr:nevent1qqstp35f0ep398stxe3tslu4390esnuvrnf3uyvp70mvgzg3s2x3segpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfdudrfm6n