[thaumasiotes]

> If their code is proprietary, no one can use it. Even if they accidentally uploaded it to a public site.

Surely this depends on the terms under which they uploaded it. I would expect npm to have a legal structure in place under which code you upload for public use is also licensed for public use.

[crooked-v]

> I would expect npm to have a legal structure in place under which code you upload for public use is also licensed for public use.

Not how it works. For example, see the license field here:

https://www.npmjs.com/package/unlicensed

[isostatic]

That would be the "terms under which they uploaded it"

NPM doesn't appear to have a "default license" though, so that would be "no license", therefore normal copyright law would seem to apply, and you can't make a copy of it, and more than you can copy a picture on a billboard or a blog post or whatever.

[benj111]

IANAL but if someone makes code publicly available (for 3 years). Then isn't there an argument to be made that its reasonable to make use of it? Probably not redistribute it, but use it at least. So I'm not even sure an explicit upload license would be required.

[dragonwriter]

You seem to be arguing for an implied license; such things do exist—but the exact scope is often not obvious even to lawyers in the absence of case law covering very similar situations as to the kind of content and the use to be made of it.

[benj111]

My understanding is that it was based on custom/ industry norms. But yes a lot of lawyering would probably be involved.

[tylersmith]

If you leave your keys in your car for 3 years it's still illegal for me to take a joy ride in it. I don't personally believe in/support the concept of IP but in a world that does (like the US) it doesn't make sense to me that people being able to see your property for 3 years gives them the right to use it.

[benj111]

If you leave you car keys at my house for 3 years does the change the answer? With the car parked on my drive?

I'm not sure a car is the best comparison though.

How about a restaurant putting mint imperials by the cash register. Is it legal for patrons to take one?

[arkades]

Property rights don’t go away because someone made it easy for you to violate them.

Mints are put out explicitly for you to take. Property right intentionally transferred.

[thinkharder]

Actually, in the US "Abandoned Vehicle" is a legal thing and depending on local laws you might very well be able to claim, and get title to a vehicle that has been abandoned on your property. And the abandonment period can be really short, 48 hrs in some states. It depends on your state's definition of "abandoned vehicle", and local laws, and it will probably require a few trips to the DMV and might require filing in small claims court, but there is a legal process for gaining ownership of a vehicle that has been left on your property.

Same for any lost property, if you find something valuable (wallet full of cash), you generally have to turn it in to the police, and there is a notification process to try to find the owner, and after a period of time (generally 3 months), if no one has claimed it, it's yours. Again, local laws are going to differ, but the general legal concept, that "A finder of property acquires no rights in mislaid property, is entitled to possession of lost property against everyone except the true owner, and is entitled to keep abandoned property."[1] is common.

There's some old saying about possession being 9/10ths of the law....

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost,_mislaid,_and_abandoned_p...

[oblio]

It's older than that, it's a Roman legal principle, usucapio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usucapio

[gowld]

Your missing the point. How is the transfer communicated? Common law traditions and statutes.

[benj111]

I have never ever seen a sign next to the mints saying they a free for patrons. I just assume because that's the done thing, I would make the same presumption about the software package.

Of someone leaves a car on my drive I can do something about it, you may not be able to do in your territory. I'm surprised there isn't the a legal concept of abandonment though, what do you do if someone drops an empty can on your land?

[bradknowles]

With physical property, there is the concept of Squatter's Rights. With copyright, if you fail to protect it adequately (which I don't think is very well defined by the court system), then the IP in question can pass into the public domain.

I'm not sure what all rights (physical or otherwise) might be applicable here.

[zmmmmm]

> With copyright, if you fail to protect it adequately (which I don't think is very well defined by the court system), then the IP in question can pass into the public domain.

This is not true. Not even remotely true. It is routine that a company notices someone using their copyrights after decades and then sues about it. Oracle is suing Google over code that was "unprotected" for a decade before they decided to sue. In Australia (I know, different country, but this is the same), Men at Work were successfully sued 29 years after they released "Land Downunder" because it has a two bar riff with similarity to a song written in 1928 [1].

As a side note, I see this all the time. What is it about this particular topic that people seem to (a) consistently confuse these things but more importantly (b) feel confident enough about ti to repeat the confused viewpoint with certainty to others?

You are probably thinking of trademarks.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_Under_(song)

[delecti]

Are you maybe thinking of trademark? If you fail to protect a trademark then you can lose it.

AFAIK, you can selectively (or not at all) enforce copyright all you want and then change your mind later.

[benj111]

Dragonwriters answer was what I was thinking.

Are you thinking trademark rather that copyright? I'm not sure you can fail to adequately protect a copyright in that sense.

[icebraining]

You can't, as seen in the case of orphan works, which are often lost because the author is unknown, so nobody can use them.