Moon for sell

[xnts]

Hi all,<br /><br />I was wondering - do you know what the law says about selling moon ? I've read today that some guy from San Francisco is owning whole moon and is selling it.<br /><br />How it is possible ?<br /><br />I thought that everything in the space is free and noone can own Moon / Mars / Saturn, etc ?<br /><br />thanks,<br />Leszek

 

[grooble]

Why isn't the guy in jail for fraud then?

 

[nacnud]

That treaty applies to states owning the moon; this guy isn't a state so it doesn't apply. At least that’s what he says, no one else takes him seriously.<br /><br />BTW I think he also tried to get NASA to pay land rent for NEAR when it landed on Eros!<br /><br />

 

[jmilsom]

I read about this a while ago. Apparently, the numerous fraudsters across the world that are selling land on the Moon, Mars and even Jupiter's moons claim a loophole in the treaty saying that it applies only to States and not private enterprise. Some of these are apparently well organised and ready to defend their claims in court.<br /><br />I guess we will see what happens if plans to establish a moon base come to fruition. Some nut from one of these groups will sue claiming that they own the land on which the base is to built. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[xnts]

Here you can find some idea what those ppl think about Space Treaties:<br /><br />http://www.moonestates.com/cat_Questions.asp#question1<br /><br />I really hope that they are wrong and that all this is a big joke...<br /><br />

 

[Peter the Dane]

selling propety that you dont have.... are a really good scam.<br />selling propety that the buyers know you dont have, are amazing.<br /><br />the space treaty are a lot like the laws of the high sea.<br />no country can claim it is theirs, no country can prevent others from going there, no country can make laws for others<br />private ownership are a bit more complex, as with a ship on the sea the owner/captain have full controll within the laws of his country as does he in the close enviroment.<br />defining the close enviroment....<br /><br />claiming ownership of areas were you are not present...<br />and never have been present.....<br /><br /><br />

 

[craig42]

Yes, but as he isn't a state, this is a non-govermental activites.<br /><br />* States shall be responsible for national space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental activities; <br /><br />And States can't own land. Besides posession is 9/10ths of the law, let's not worry about it until someone is there. After all who owned America before Cloumbus? Shoudn't his country have got all of North America since he claimed it?<br /><br />

 

[spacester]

From a purely legal standpoint, I believe the situation is understood in terms of "Terra Incognita"<br /><br />The land being sold does not legally exist - it has not been claimed as sovereign territory, much less surveyed, platted, etc in order to be transfered to private ownership.<br /><br />Therefore the "sale" of "deeds" is purely symbolic. Caveat emptor dictates that due diligence be performed on the part of the buyer, and the slighest investigation will reveal the utter lack of bona fides from a controlling legal authority.<br /><br />The deed sales are purely symbolic, and as there is no one to defend the ownership of something that does not exist, there is no injured party and no cause for tort or criminal procedings.<br /><br />That's my understanding; I would love to see a space lawyer here to confirm or correct.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

I'm not a lawyer, and I didn't even stay in a Holiday Express last night <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> , but that's my understanding as well. These people aren't selling anything but a piece of paper that says you own something. Stellar naming rights are in the same boat; you can "buy" a star for somebody, but the name isn't recognized by the International Astronomical Union (the body that officially names celestial bodies) and you have no guarantee whatsoever that the name is even remotely meaningful. You can get the same effect by typing something up on a computer that says you own an asteroid or whatever and printing it out.<br /><br />Outer space is a true wilderness. Nobody owns any of it. Nobody *will* own any of it until it starts to get colonized or used in a real sense. Until then, this is all just an intellectual exercise (from a legal standpoint). It's just a scam, really. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

I have bad news for ya'all. The Moon is all cheddar and I ate it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[jmilsom]

You're not Wallace of Wallace and Grommit fame are you? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

No, it's not made of cheddar.<br /><br />"Cheddar? Hmm... Stilton! No? Hmmm. It's like no cheese I've ever tasted." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[jmilsom]

Of course, how silly of me....but did spacefire remember the crackers?<br /><br />"No crackers Gromit, we've forgotten the crackers." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[fingle]

<i>"Besides posession is 9/10ths of the law, let's not worry about it until someone is there. After all who owned America before Cloumbus?"</i><br /><br />The americas were not an airless barren waste land, and many people were already in possesion of the land centuries before columbus got there. Can you say theft and genocide ?<br /><br />fingle. <br /><br /><br />edited to correct format. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[craig42]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The americas were not an airless barren waste land<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Airless and barren yes, but not a wasteland it's got large amounts of valuable materials once we get there, I acknowledge the diffrences, but it's the closest thing to a legal precedent we've got.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>and many people were already in possesion of the land centuries before columbus got there<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br /> Exactly my point, lack of legally valid and recognised ownership didn't stop France,Britain, Spain or the USA, otherwise Native Ameriancs would have owned USA.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Can you say theft and genocide ? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> Who is there to steal the moon from or kill off there?

 

[fingle]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> but not a wasteland it's got large amounts of valuable materials once we get there<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Materials that willl be valuable for the people that will be living there is not enough of a reason to go there. <br /><br />Raw materials from luna exported to terra, will never be cheaper than the same raw materials that exist on terra. <br /><br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> Who is there to steal the moon from or kill off there?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Yes I know, but your example still raises my hackles <img src="/images/icons/mad.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/shocked.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> <br />Please excuse me for missing the mark.<br /><br />fingle <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[craig42]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Materials that willl be valuable for the people that will be living there is not enough of a reason to go there.<br /><br />Raw materials from luna exported to terra, will never be cheaper than the same raw materials that exist on terra.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Ah I see where the argument is coming from, Agreed as an O'Neilan, I look at going to the moon for just after we start building small space hotels(or equivelant) , when the materials will be much cheaper than Earth-launched for use <b>in orbit</b>, until their needed in orbit, I agree that there is no intrisic value of the moon.

 

[spacester]

{For the following, please pardon my passion <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> it's just that I've been offline for a while and had some pent-up writing energy <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> }<br /><br />The intrinsic value of the moon is the potential it represents. <br /><br />After centuries of staring at it, we can BE THERE. The fact that we are the generation which can fulfill the dreams of the ages is a fact to be exploited, creating a self-fulfilling prophesy.<br />***<br />Not everything develops in a linear fashion, and space development is sufficiently complicated to make historical analogies invalid at some level.<br /><br />IOW, whenever you try to compare space development to some historical development, the complexity of the sheer logic of space development makes your task difficult to impossible.<br /><br />Lots of historical analogies can offer lots of insight into how to go about it, but none will serve as an actual model for exactly how to accomplish space development.<br />***<br />The logic of Space Development is non-linear.<br /><br />The moon has the <i>potential</i> to provide a second place for the human race to be. This exploitable potential speaks of the future - but it does not speak to the here-and-now of the man-on-the-street. The logic has to work backwards from the future to what it is that needs to be done to go down that road to the future.<br /><br />IOW, the language of lunar development is usually the language of the dreamer. Unfortunately, the assumption is often made that dreamers always speak of the future, so lunar plans tend to not be a call to action. <br /><br />It follows that the typical impression is that lunar plans are "decades in the future". But of course, if that thinking always persists, it will always be true and we will literally NEVER accomplish space development. <br /><br />Not if the moon is to have anything to do with it at least. And a vision of space development that does not include the moon is absurd.<br /><br />Inste <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[craig42]

Spacester says <blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Lots of historical analogies can offer lots of insight into how to go about it, but none will serve as an actual model for exactly how to accomplish space development. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Thanks Spacester, that's exactly what I was trying to say! Can I pinch that?

 

[oxrxixoxn]

Sea Law is an interesting analogy. The U.S. reaction to the U.N.'s attempt to pass a Law of the Sea Treaty (1982) in particular is relevant. The proposed LOS treaty in full would have made all sea-bottom resources "common heritage of mankind" (much like the failed Moon Treaty tried to do for space). <br /><br />Problem is, the private American companies that want to mine the sea floor are not too keen on the idea of splitting all their hard-earned proceeds with every government on Earth. (How fair would that be anyway, a company making a huge investment of time, money, and effort, and then having to split the proceeds with a bunch of folks who contributed nothing at all? In truth, seabed mining activity would grind to a halt under such a regime - an anti-free-market proposition.)<br /><br />See http://www.ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/marine/mar-33.cfm for more on the history and effects of this.<br /><br />Anyway, the U.S. reaction was passage of the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (DSHMRA, 1994). This legislation sets up a licensing system for seabed mining.<br /><br />What is relevant for space is that with DSHMRA the U.S. basically enacted a law saying the U.S. government is *not* claiming sovereignty over the deep seabeds of the world and at the same time *is* recognizing the right of private companies to claim the mining areas they are working on (a lease) as long as they are using and occupying the undersea region. I.e., once a company has licensed an undersea area, no other company can sneak in during the night and mine the resources there.<br /><br />This is analogous to how one piece of a possible property rights regime on the Moon based on "use and occupation" could work.<br /><br />The 1967 Outer Space Treaty bans any form of "national appropriation" on the Moon. Like with the DSHMRA, however, the U.S. could pass legislation "recognizing" or licensing a private comp