Slashdot Mirror


Lawyers In Space...

colonist writes "The Christian Science Monitor presents an interesting overview of space law. Some want space to be shared by all: 'Outer space is a province of all mankind. There is not, and should not be, any privatization of outer space. It is a common thing that should belong to all.' Some people have claimed parts of the moon or Mars. In response, a lawyer has claimed the sun, 'to show how ridiculous a property-rights system in outer space would be if it were based solely on claims unsubstantiated by any actual possession.' The Space Settlement Initiative wants official recognition of land claims made by those who establish human settlements on the moon or Mars."

24 of 553 comments (clear)

  1. I have dibs! by BaldGhoti · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dibs on Uranus!

    --
    [insert witty sig here]
  2. Headline dissappointed me.... by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 5, Funny

    Damn, and here I thought I was about to read about a proposal to kick all the lawyers off the planet!

    1. Re:Headline dissappointed me.... by NETHED · · Score: 4, Funny

      Me too. I was imagining briefcases full of worthless paper, gavils, and thier owners floating up in space.

      And about the BMWs, leave them here for me.

      I'd let them increase my taxes if they got rid of the lawyers. But alas, never going to happen as the tax increasers (politicians) are lawyers.

      --
      --sig fault--
    2. Re:Headline dissappointed me.... by provolt · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I think it should be a constitutional amendment that Lawyers are not allowed to hold public office.

      You know, you are so right. Lawyers shouldn't be able to make laws. Anyone who has spent time studying the law, obviously knows too much to be able to write a good law. We need more amature law makers. I'm sure they would do a much better job.

      You idea has so much merit that I think we should extend it further. Computers are very difficult to understand for people who know anything about how computers work. I think we need to pass a constitutional ammendment that prevents those have studied computer science or engineering from designing computers. It should make for much better computers that everyone can understand.

      Perhpas we should extend this to doctors and writers as well. I don't want complex medical advice. I wouldn't want to read a book by someone who has studied writing.

      Ok, enough with the sarcasm. It's just that your idea is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever had the displeasure of reading.
    3. Re:Headline dissappointed me.... by justanyone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Lawyers are not allowed to hold public office

      This kind of thinking causes big problems!

      Follow me here... Politicians are people who (a) WRITE LAWS and (b) ENFORCE LAWS. I very much like it that my legislators, who we put there to write good laws, see inconsistencies and opportunities for improvement within existing and proposed laws, and create the legal framework for our society.

      Further, when we have wiener-politicians who don't understand the law either create or enforce them, they end up causing lots of problems for both the public and the courts.

      So, PLEASE elect lawyers as politicians, that's one thing they're good for. Further, please elect experienced lawyers that know their way around case law so they don't have to get on-the-job experience at taxpayer expense (where expense is measured in the human terms of suffering under misworded statutes).

      Of course, everyone in a legislature doesn't have to be a lawyer, just so there's enough of them there to point out when something is jurisprudentially incorrect.

    4. Re:Headline dissappointed me.... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 4, Informative

      It would be a dumb idea if it were not for the fact that law has become so complex without good reason what so ever other than the basic reason of being complex. I would agree with some of your sarcasm as I have seen it several times. How many computer consultants perpetuate a problem to make money rather than fix it? How many Doctors prescribe drugs because of their kickbacks and not because of a real need?

      I never said someone who studied law shouldn't be allowed to make it, I said someone who is/was recently a lawyer shouldn't be allowed to go into public office.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  3. So can I sue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    So can I sue this lawyer if I get skin cancer?

    1. Re:So can I sue by garcia · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sure, and he will claim that you owe him money for using his rays without consent/payment.

  4. No property? by bookemdano63 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even hinting that property and commercial enterprise is not going to be possible in space is a sure way to cripple space exploration. All large scale exploration is done for either commericial or military gain, take your pick.
    For the near future though, exerting property rights over anything you can not "meaningfully control" goes against all the common law up to this point.

  5. Force by mccalli · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This question will be settled by force, not law. If an offworld entity decides to split from the homeland, it will be a question of enforcement against them as to whether they can be brought to heal or whether they get to float freely. Note that they would need to be truly offworld, as any trace of their entity on Earth (a corporation, a nation state etc.) could be penalised much more easily.

    Does this situation sound familiar to any US-based people? As a hint, it sounds fairly familiar to me as a Brit.

    Cheers,
    Ian

  6. Re:Possession != Right by AviLazar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The piece of rock we are standing on has been around for a while too, and we seem to be doing a great job of claiming it. Personally, if someone wants to pay to "own" some nebula - let them. They will also have to deal with things like - eminent domain, and abandanment laws, as well as the property taxes (come on we need to fund the NASA school somehow).

    --

    I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
  7. Lawyers in DEEP space by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Funny

    - Hal..
    - HAL?!
    - Yes Dave
    - Let me in, I have a case to prosecute
    - I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  8. Re:Star Registry by ch-chuck · · Score: 4, Informative

    I was just thinking about that, but soon ran across this, The International Astronomical Union, which "dissociates itself entirely from the commercial practice of "selling" fictitious star names or "real estate" on other planets or moons in the Solar System. Accordingly, the IAU maintains no list of the (several competing) enterprises in this business in individual countries of the world. "

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  9. Re:Possession != Right by timeOday · · Score: 5, Insightful
    These planets and stars have been around for billions of years, how can any Johnny-come-lately dare think any of it should belong to him?
    That's supposedly how the Indians felt when the white man first offered to buy their land. They accepted the deal thinking they were getting money for nothing - how could you really own anything you didn't create and couldn't carry with you? Now it's hard for us to see things that way.

    10 years ago there was a real question over ownership of "cyberspace." Some of us thought it should be an apolitical place where real-world laws need not apply. Want to register the domain name McDomalds.com for yourself? Why not? Who ever said copyrights applied to the Internet? Now it's hard to remember how that made sense.

    I predict that in 500 years, today's questioning whether property rights should hold in space will seem just as quaint and hard to understand. People never fail to fence things off and keep them for themselves if they can.

  10. Space and commerce by sql*kitten · · Score: 5, Interesting
    . There is not, and should not be, any privatization of outer space. It is a common thing that should belong to all
    It's hard to know where to begin to refute such stupidity. Space will not be a part of everyday life until it is economically viable; that is to say, until the value of things you can do in space exceeds the cost of getting into space in the first place. If it costs you USD 10Bn to get to an asteroid and back and you can bring back USD 11Bn worth of minerals with you, then getting a job in space will be no harder than getting a job on an oil rig, or in a mine. But if, as soon as you get back to Earth, your minerals are confiscated because they "belong to all", then why would you bother going? If your colony can be raided by anyone with a ship and there's no policing based on ownership, how is that different from your home being robbed now?

    Until and unless a legal framework for ownership of assets (perhaps by being the first to land on them and remain for a period of time) exists, space will remain the preserve of a self-perpetuating government-academic elite and a dream for the common man - but that common man's taxes are what'll pay for it all still. Once space is opened up to industry, then ordinary people can move there, and only then.
  11. Not only that... by aussersterne · · Score: 5, Funny

    He is currently pushing for the DMRA (Digital Millenium Ray Act) that will dictate how and when you are allowed to use those rays, even though you have paid for them and even though they are broadcast into your own space regardless.

    Technology is under development that will strictly govern the ways in which you are able to use his sun's rays, and will monitor your ray use for marketing purposes and of course to ensure that you aren't pirating rays.

    Any circumvention of this control on your use of rays or any unauthorized use of rays, even those that filter through your windows uninvited, will be a federal solar system offense, punishable by up to 15 years in a federal solar system prison and a 1,000,000,000 fine.

    Such stiff penalties are necessary because of the vast quantities of solar radiation involved, which, if totaled, represents a truly staggering amount of currency. In fact, the sun's owner estimates that he loses over $1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000,000 per year to unauthorized and unpaid for photon use, not to mention such black-hat practices as the storing of solar radiation using contraband such as solar cells or the growing of plants from pirated photon streams, which can then be consumed later for energy, with the net effect that the individual in question eventually gains solar energy without having licensed or paid for it.

    "We're working hard to ensure that everyone is complying with the law and can enjoy the sun's rays safely and legally, while still supporting the sun," says the sun's owner. Privately, though, he hints that the loss of revenue due to unpaid for photon use may eventually destroy the giant, causing it to go red and eventually fade into a much smaller, more dense star.

    --
    STOP . AMERICA . NOW
  12. Be there to build there by grunt107 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Property 'ownership' should be on physical presence basis. If business A spends $20 billion to create a sustained colony on Mars, then their buildings/development should be respected. If the colony discovers something like oil, they have rights to that oil since they spent the money/effort to get there (Hallimartian - CEO: Dick Cheney's head).

    This does not mean the entire planet is theirs.

    The sun cannot be 'owned' by anyone (that's 1 helluva Nomex suit if someone can land on the Sun).

    One the other hand, if there are indigenous inhabitants (future-speak) found on a planet, they trump the visitors.

  13. Reminds me of Antarctica... by futuretaikonaut · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...which is divided up between a handful of nations for scientific research, and by treaty, it belongs to the "common heritage of mankind." That, if I recall correctly from my international law studies, is the same term applied to space. Both Antarctica and outer space belong to everyone in the world for common scientific study and use.

    Of course, the treaties around Antarctica would all go to pot if say, something like massive deposits of fuel oil or some other extremely profitable venture were discovered there...

    It's safe to say the same about space, too.

  14. Re:When did the Communists take over outer space? by sql*kitten · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You can't claim anything until you set foot out there, and put some reasonable limit on how much land each individual can claim when there is a shortage.

    How about this:

    1) If you land on an object <100km on its longest axis and remain for one year, it's yours in perpetuity. If you leave before then, the object becomes unowned.
    2) If you land on an object >100km on its longest axis and remain for one year, a circle around your landing spot 100km in diameter is yours in perpetuity. No-one else may land in your circle during your first year for the purpose of claiming ownership (tho' they can of course visit if you let them) and if you leave, the land becomes unowned.
    3) If you land on an object on which insufficient land remains for your 100km circle, and you remain for one year, you get the largest possible circle without overlapping anyone elses around your landing point. If you feel hard done by, you should've picked something else to stake your claim on.

    There, property rights in space solved.

  15. similar scenario in Antarctica by scampiandchips · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There is a slightly similar situation in Antarctica, where a treaty exists in which no claims of ownership are recognised. I think its quite a common belief in some military circles that it could well be a serious point of conflict if any quantity of natural resources are found there. Its probably a very good model of how things might work for ownership of the moon and mars.
    From an antarctic website:
    In 1961, the Antarctic Treaty took effect with signatures from the twelve countries who participated in the IGY. The treaty is a surprisingly short and simple document, but it is one of the most successful international agreements ever made. It deals with issues regarding the future of Antarctica and recognizes that:
    The Antarctic Treaty guarantees four things: "Antarctica will remain open for scientific research to nations who agree to the treaty. No military bases can be built on the continent. There will be no testing of nuclear weapons or dumping of nuclear waste in Antarctica. No claims of ownership are recognized or denied, and no new claims of ownership can be made. Since the treaty took effect several additional countries have signed on and members have added laws to protect Antarctic plants and animals. In 1991, the treaty was further strengthened by the Protocol on Environmental Protection which defines Antarctica as a "natural reserve devoted to peace and science." Today, scientists maintain year-round research stations throughout Antarctica but it remains an untamed wilderness.

    --
    There are things we know we don't know and things we don't know we don't know. - Donald Rumsfeld
    1. Re:similar scenario in Antarctica by vidarh · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The problem with this is that:

      a) there is a strong presence of governments on earth that have signed on to the Antarctic treaty, while in outer space there is not. As a consequence, someone colonising a small part of a planet would likely be able to maintain effective possession of a land area there, and the longer they hold it the less likely it would be that it would be tolerable for many countries to try to remove them by force.

      b) Most of Antarctica has been claimed by one ore more states. If one were to ignore the antarctic treaty, there would be minimal basis for anyone else but some subset/intersection of the countries who have claims and the countries who maintain current scientific missions to Antarctica. As a result there is little possibility for a claim to have any shred of legal backing unless they get the support of one of the stronger claimaints. This could very well happen, but still presents an obstacle that's not present for outer space.

      I think you'll see property claims for outer space upheld eventually, but only once they can be defended by actual possession over a period of time.

      The current treaties aren't signed by nearly all nations, and they're furthermore written from a standpoint of the signatories and/or UN representing all of mankind and mankind having rights to pass laws for the entire universe. This again breaks down the moment there are practical means for someone to colonise outer space but not practical means to mount military operations to stop them. (Not to mention if there turns out to be life on other planets)

  16. Re:When did the Communists take over outer space? by Rich0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What happens if you send a probe to land on a spot on Mars and begin construction over a 5 year period of an elaborate base. Then somebody else beats you to occupying it?

    Any reasonable scenario for inhabiting another planet will probably involve robotic fabrication long before humans show up.

    Or, suppose the USA begins a 100 year extensive multi-quadrillion-dollar project to terraform Mars. Does it gain the entire planet as a result? Or can anybody land on the new paradise and stake their own claim as soon as the air is remotely breathable?

    There are going to be a number of murky issues for some time to come. Things like this used to be settled via might-makes-right - but they didn't have nuclear weapons back then. Going all out at war over ownership of a big piece of land used to be commonplace - now it would just kill off the entire human race.

    The problem is that settling an asteroid or planet could be very expensive. If there is no ownership incentive, then it won't be tried - except by isolated research teams. The most effective way to inhabit a planet like Mars is probably full-scale terraforming. It would probably be the cheapest solution on a planetwide scale, but of course it would cost a fortune. Unless you end up with a single Earth governemnt which can just tax the entire human race to pay for it, how do you reward the people who come up with the funds?

  17. Real world ... by Ra5pu7in · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem is not really with the lawyers. Yes, I'm serious. Take a look at Jewish law if you want an example of this (the book of Leviticus in the Bible). No lawyers involved, but "thou shalt not kill/murder" wound up with a number of variations - depending on the circumstances. Laws become convoluted as the worst offenders find loopholes and those are sealed. Lawyers have added to that problem by making a career of "definitions" (as in "the definition of murder is ..., therefore this is not murder"). But the initial problem lies with the criminal element which will break laws and seek ways to avoid the repercussions of breaking those laws.

    Never mind the criminals, who do you think gets the tax code rewritten regularly? Those who regularly seek out loopholes, which must then be closed (more tax law). Any simplified tax code would likely mean the top few percent would pay more than they do now ... completely unacceptable to them. Of course, they can't make it obvious that they are shifting the burden to those below them on the income scale, so highly complex and confusing laws are born.

    (All this should not be taken to mean I think lawyers are worthwhile, or that they should become politicians, but it does mean they don't hold full responsibility for the state of law in the U.S.)

    --
    I was taking one day at a time, but then several days got together and ambushed me. (from a Rhymes with Orange comic)
  18. Property Taxes??? by Fbelch · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hey..
    If these people say they own the sun / moon / other celestial objects.

    Let's start charging them property taxes.

    Sun Example:
    6069871166000.84 square kilometers of surface (Approx)
    x $200 / square kilometer
    = $ 1,214,000,000,000,000 (Approx)
    + Processing Fees (Lawyers love them.. so they would be happy to pay them.).

    Of course the fees would be charged yearly... And interest would be charged on missed payments!

    After something like this, lets see how fast they give up these celestial objects!