Slashdot Mirror


Sunken Treasure Worth $500 Million Found Off England

An anonymous reader writes "In a modern day (and underwater) version of Indiana Jones, the AP is reporting that Odyssey Marine Exploration has recovered an estimated $500 Million in colonial coins from a 400 year old shipwreck in the Atlantic. The exact location of the wreck is still undisclosed. Odyssey is a for-profit, publicly traded company. 'In seeking exclusive rights to that site, an Odyssey attorney told a federal judge last fall that the company likely had found the remains of a 17th-century merchant vessel that sank with valuable cargo aboard, about 40 miles off the southwestern tip of England. A judge granted those rights Wednesday. In keeping with the secretive nature of the project dubbed ''Black Swan,'' Odyssey also is not discussing details of the coins, such as their type, denomination or country of origin. Bruyer said he observed a wide variety of coins that probably were never circulated. He said the currency was in much better condition than artifacts yielded by most shipwrecks of a similar age. The coins -- mostly silver pieces -- could fetch several hundred to several thousand dollars each, with some possibly commanding much more, he said.'"

157 comments

  1. Arrrr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Yarrrr matey, thar be treasure..

    1. Re:Arrrr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arrr, ye scurvy cove, that b'ain't no moon... it's a b'yr'lady space-station!

  2. As the sunken vessel lies in international waters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    what stops courts in other countries from giving other companies the right to also go salvaging for whatever is to be found there?

  3. someone call in the ninjas by WannaBeGeekGirl · · Score: 1

    Can't let pirate treasure get away!

    argh!

    --
    ~WBGG~ "And I'm so sad like a good book I can't put this Day Back a sorta fairytale with you" ~Tori Amos
  4. Solution to global warming! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Phase 1. Treasure
    Phase 2. ???
    Phase 3. Stop Global Warming

    Only now does it become obvious that what we needed were more pirates.

    1. Re:Solution to global warming! by Miseph · · Score: 1

      Parent is not a troll, it's a joke. It's an FSM reference (and a better one than most, I might add), for all those who might not get it.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    2. Re:Solution to global warming! by Evil+Cretin · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well yes. Except Phase 2 isn't "???", since only ninjas are that secretive.

      Phase 2 in this case is clearly something along the lines of "Do what you want 'cause a pirate is free, you are a pirate!"

      --
      "A deadlock has been reached. One task must die. We must now choose between murder and suicide."
  5. Re:As the sunken vessel lies in international wate by WannaBeGeekGirl · · Score: 1

    I believe its being handled by not giving away the gps coordinates in a very large ocean until all the treasure has been acquired.

    You'd be looking for a needle in several large haystacks to find the actual divers that are harvesting it.

    --
    ~WBGG~ "And I'm so sad like a good book I can't put this Day Back a sorta fairytale with you" ~Tori Amos
  6. The exact location of the wreck still undisclosed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Inexpensive maps available for just $99

  7. why coins? by anonymous_but_brave · · Score: 1

    In my attempts to consider the relation between pirate's treasure and technology news, I could only come up with a few ideas, none of which were addressed in the summary or TFA: 1. The coins had an unusually high electrical conductivity / specific weight ratio 2. They were produced by (at-the-time) high tech currency manufacturing technology or, 3. It's just because Pirates are popular lately.....

    1. Re:why coins? by bstempi · · Score: 1

      In my attempts to consider the relation between pirate's treasure and technology news, I could only come up with a few ideas, none of which were addressed in the summary

      It was never stated because it's obvious...this is teh l00t that will be used to buy Sealand. Just in time, too!

    2. Re:why coins? by WannaBeGeekGirl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah I wondered why so many coins would be worth so much because it'd drive down collectibility by flooding the market. I'm with #1, the metal must have some value. I'm sure some coins will be purchased by collectors. The rest will end up melted down for their materials value? Of course #3 could easily be part of it. Never underestimate the marketing ability of a blockbuster film and greedy corporations.

      Why are the ninjas taking so long? Is there a run on hamburgers this morning?

      --
      ~WBGG~ "And I'm so sad like a good book I can't put this Day Back a sorta fairytale with you" ~Tori Amos
    3. Re:why coins? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot isn't technology news - it's "news for nerds".

      Any proper nerd loves pirates. Nerds loved pirates before they came back into style and by gum we'll love them long after they go out.

      Sunken treasure? That's "stuff that matters"!

    4. Re:why coins? by flyingsquid · · Score: 4, Informative
      The rest will end up melted down for their materials value?

      An ounce of precious metal is going to be worth whatever the going rate for an ounce of precious metal is, plus any value it may have as an artifact. Given that being in the form of an antiquity is only going to increase the value of the metal, it generally doesn't make sense to melt down coins. In the case of silver, these days the going rate is only $13 an ounce, so the value is mostly coming from the the fact that they are old and rare, not that they are made of silver. Odyssey says they have 17 tons of coins, which sounds like a lot, but that's only 17 tons * 2200 lbs/ton *16 oz/lb * $13/oz = $7,779,200 worth of silver, which is 1.5% of what they say the haul is worth.

      Supply and demand do dictate that bringing up 17 tons of colonial-era coins will decrease their rarity, which will tend to decrease their value. There are a few ways the company can offset this. First, they can control the flow of the coins onto the market so it doesn't end up flooded. If they sell just 5% of the coins per year for the next 20 years, or $25 million per year, the market will be able to absorb it much better than if they dump a half-billion on the market all at once. The other issue is, of course, that marketing. If the company can increase the demand for the coins by getting more people to look at rare coins either as a hobby or an investment, the value may not decrease that much, or could even increase.

      Long term, Odyssey's biggest problem may be other wrecks. They plan on making this a business model, so they are looking at another wreck with half a billion worth of gold aboard, and looking into exploring several more wrecks, so they are going to keep bringing rare coins onto the market. And if that keeps making money, it will encourage copycat operations. Actually, Odyssey's business model isn't original either, the only difference between what they did, and the group who salvaged the Central America did, is that Odyssey had an IPO, whereas the Central America salvage company is not publicly traded. Ship of Gold and the Deep Blue Sea has a really excellent account of what went into the Central America salvage operation.

  8. This just proves... by Romwell · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...that pirates are better than ninjas. You never get to read about ninja treasure found underwater !

    1. Re:This just proves... by WannaBeGeekGirl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Romwell (873455) posted:
      ...that pirates are better than ninjas. You never get to read about ninja treasure found underwater !
      You never read about it, because no one ever catches ninjas! ~ninja grin~
      --
      ~WBGG~ "And I'm so sad like a good book I can't put this Day Back a sorta fairytale with you" ~Tori Amos
    2. Re:This just proves... by RiskyChris · · Score: 0

      Ninjas aren't stupid enough to get their ships sunk.

    3. Re:This just proves... by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      ...that pirates are better than ninjas. You never get to read about ninja treasure found underwater !


      Because the ninjas swoop in and assassinate the writer before he can finish the story. DUH.
    4. Re:This just proves... by jcr · · Score: 1

      Ninjas are too busy to waste time on ships.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    5. Re:This just proves... by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      >...that pirates are better than ninjas. You never get to read about ninja treasure found underwater !
      That's because Ninja's are far better at hiding their underwater treasure troves.

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    6. Re:This just proves... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then there is the most fearsome creature of all: the ninja pirate !

    7. Re:This just proves... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only on Slashdot can something like this be modded as "Informative."

    8. Re:This just proves... by puppet10 · · Score: 1

      We are a hedge please move along.

      --
      -------- This space intentionally left blank --------
    9. Re:This just proves... by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Ninjas are afraid of the ocean anyway. They simply can't fathom the depths of the sea.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  9. Re:As the sunken vessel lies in international wate by blackicye · · Score: 2, Funny

    What's to stop someone from just waiting until they leave port then following the ship/boat?

    Wonder how they stop that one suspicious cabin cruiser that keeps tailing them from port to salvage site.
    Maybe some kind of court order or injunction..what if another takes its place..

    I'd imagine the easiest way would be to lure these stalkers into international waters then sink them with the cannons.

    Yaaarrrr!

  10. Federal Judge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If the wreck was 40 miles off the English coast, it should in English, or possibly French, territorial waters. So why ask a US judge?

    1. Re:Federal Judge by wakaranai · · Score: 5, Informative

      In general, it seems that UK and French territorial waters extend to twelve nautical miles (13.8 miles or 22.2 km) off their coasts.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_Waters

    2. Re:Federal Judge by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      And the rest of the ocean counts as US territorial waters, right? ;-)

    3. Re:Federal Judge by belmolis · · Score: 4, Informative

      The wreck appears to be in international waters. Therefore, the company may obtain an order for admiralty arrest from a competent court of any nation. In the general case, admiralty arrest is the approximate equivalent in admiralty law of a lien on property. In a case such as this, what it amounts to is a declaration by the court that the ship has been abandoned by its original owner and that the applicant therefore has exclusive salvage rights.

    4. Re:Federal Judge by nicklott · · Score: 1
      Yes, although as an exception to that IIRC the Royal Navy (and other national Navies) lay claim to any wreck of one of it's own ships, however old it maybe and whoever's waters it may be in (not that this is a RN ship). The original owner also gets first dibs on anything from a wreck *landed* in the UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receiver_of_Wreck) and, assuming the the coins are British, presumably the Crown is the original owner. Which probably explains why they chose to sail it hundreds of miles across the Atlantic rather than 40 miles to Plymouth.

      I thought the Crown was more aggressive in enforcing its (perceived) rights in these matters, but google tells me this particular government is more interested in getting their dirty paws on the money (http://www.britarch.ac.uk/conserve/sussexpr.html)

    5. Re:Federal Judge by packeteer · · Score: 1

      Pretty much the rest of the oceans and all the land...

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    6. Re:Federal Judge by donscarletti · · Score: 1

      I'm, pretty sure a nation has control of salvage within their Exclusive Economic Zone which extend 200 nautical miles out to sea.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    7. Re:Federal Judge by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's so cool. I can't wait until someone does something similar with an abandoned spacecraft.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    8. Re:Federal Judge by belmolis · · Score: 1

      I was only talking about jurisdiction. What law governs the claim is another matter. In general, the law has been "finder's keeper's", even for fairly recent wrecks. For example, the Andrea Doria, which sank in 1956, was salvaged by an outfit that obtained complete rights to it. Historically there have been some exceptions for government vessels, but even these did not apply if the vessel was engaged in a primarily non-governmental activity (e.g. serving as a treasure ship.) The whole business is complicated and different countries had different ideas - there was not always agreement.

      In recent years the "finder's keeper's" principle has been increasingly challenged, partly by ship owners and insurance companies that want to maintain ownership and partly by archaeologists who want the opportunity to explore wrecks scientifically. In the United States, legislation was passed a while back that considerably changed the picture. This applies to freshwater and to coastal waters but does not affect the high seas.

    9. Re:Federal Judge by gkhan1 · · Score: 1

      I think the general principle is that the country where the vessel is registered is responsible for that vessel if you are in international waters. So, for instance, if you commit a murder in the middle of the Atlantic on a ship registered to France, the French police investigates it and locks up the offenders. I imagine the same thing is true for this kind of situation. It was an American boat that found it, which means that the American government can decide whether it's "historically significant" and should be put in a museum, or something.

    10. Re:Federal Judge by dparnass · · Score: 1

      But doesn't an economic zone extend to almost 200 miles. Or does that only apply to fishing and exploration for oil and natural gas.

    11. Re:Federal Judge by Tim+Browse · · Score: 1

      "Mr. Blair. It seems there is nothing you can possess which I cannot take away."

    12. Re:Federal Judge by shlepp · · Score: 0

      International waters, the company most likely just needs to go through the US government to get a claim on the wreck and so that way its theirs, so no one else can touch it. These guys poor a lot of money into bringing this stuff up, it would be a huge pissoff for them if someone else where to say its theirs and take it all, then it would have been money pissed away into the ocean for no reason. This way its finders keepers, the way it should be for finding treasure.

    13. Re:Federal Judge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are wrong. The EEZ is in no way related to salvage.

    14. Re:Federal Judge by segedunum · · Score: 1

      You are wrong. The EEZ is in no way related to salvage.
      Over the last few years this has become a massive grey area. The case of Japan salvaging a ship in China's EEZ zone in 2002 was a case in point. Heck, the US even claims complete sovereignty over their EEZ zones at various times to suit them even though they haven't ratified the relevant treaty. Go figure.
    15. Re:Federal Judge by segedunum · · Score: 1

      These guys poor a lot of money into bringing this stuff up, it would be a huge pissoff for them if someone else where to say its theirs and take it all
      You don't know what the definition of salvage is. Salvage in no way gives you ownership rights, but an understanding of recompense.

      This way its finders keepers, the way it should be for finding treasure.
      Things most certainly aren't like that, and anyone that thinks it is is likely to be disappointed.
  11. Re:As the sunken vessel lies in international wate by hcpxvi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Goodness knows. If BBC Radio is to be believed, the nearest country seems to be the UK. And the ship that sank was English (dating back to before the existance of the UK). But the salvage company are American. And the treasure was nicked by the English from the Spanish. Who presumaby nicked the original Ag/Au from the native South Americans before making it into coins. So why it is a federal Judge who gets to decide who can salvage the stuff, I don't know. Because it is a US company, I suppose.

  12. I'm not getting it by niceone · · Score: 3, Funny

    In a modern day (and underwater) version of Indiana Jones

    I'm not quite getting it. Leaving aside the difficulties of shooting, who would stand in for the evil Nazis? I suppose they could have the Taliban in scuba gear.

    1. Re:I'm not getting it by saforrest · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm not quite getting it. Leaving aside the difficulties of shooting, who would stand in for the evil Nazis? I suppose they could have the Taliban in scuba gear.

      Well, why not the Nazis? They had U-boats after all. Maybe it could be a secret undersea Nazi base in the North Sea which survived the downfall of the Third Reich by remaining undetected, but which is located close enough to the shipwreck that its existence is jeopardized. Indiana Jones V: Indiana Jones und Das Boot!

    2. Re:I'm not getting it by niceone · · Score: 5, Funny

      You, Sir, are a genius. Have you considered a Hollywood career? Combining 2 sequels into one movie - a masterstroke.

    3. Re:I'm not getting it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      North Sea?
      You probably meant New Swabia (which is at the South Pole): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Swabia
      See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_UFOs

    4. Re:I'm not getting it by failedlogic · · Score: 1

      Oh! That base...... Well, I'm not supposed to be posting this, but its where my boss, Red Skull, is hiding so Captain America can't find him ..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Skull

      Don't you feel smart now. Your conspriacy theory and Hollywood blockbuster story will not work. You'll need to shoot a documentary or a biography episode for A&E.

    5. Re:I'm not getting it by ccp · · Score: 1

      You, Sir, are a genius. Have you considered a Hollywood career? Combining 2 sequels into one movie - a masterstroke.

      I'm afraid the talent most sought-after in Hollywood is spreading one sequel into three movies.

      Cheers,
      CC
  13. Yet another reason why we need copyright reform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is a travesty. This centuries-old sunken treasure is of immeasurable cultural and archaeological value. That the contents of this ship are to be handed over to private corporation to be auctioned off to the highest bidder like so many pork bellies is an insult to human acheivement.

    This is just another spadeful to the existing mountain of evidence of the crucial need for copyright reform in today's digital age.

    1. Re:Yet another reason why we need copyright reform by Archon-X · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I see your point. Devil's advocate:
      1- Is it better that it was never found at all?
      2- Can you argue that it would have never been recovered by a museum etc
      3- Money is always a good motivation for people to find things.
      4- Are you sure they're going to 'destroy the evidence' to feed their greed?
      So far it seems they've been pretty methodical and patient to go by the book. Perhaps we'll all be pleasantly surprised.

    2. Re:Yet another reason why we need copyright reform by Nutria · · Score: 1
      I see your point. Devil's advocate:

      He was being sarcastic...

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    3. Re:Yet another reason why we need copyright reform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In his defense, I missed the last sentence the first time also.

    4. Re:Yet another reason why we need copyright reform by sqldr · · Score: 0

      People give this argument when saying that the British museum should give back much of what it houses. You can't have it both ways.

      --
      I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
  14. Pieces of eight! by golemwashere · · Score: 1

    ARR

  15. Re:As the sunken vessel lies in international wate by WannaBeGeekGirl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah you could follow them, but there are hundreds if not thousands of these modern day pirate types that go looking for lost treasures of pirates of old. So you'd still be taking a huge chance.

    I'm willing to bet that anyone who spends enough money on gear and time to go tracking down treasures worth that much and finally finds one isn't about to share it with some noob that follows them around. Pirates and those that seek their lost treasure probably aren't the sharing type. Think pillage etc...

    As far as where the treasure ends up in international seas, I'm sure these guys are fast at what they do and making a case against them will be hard. The crime scene is under several hundred feet of water. Probably most countries have more pressing issues to deal with when it comes to their naval fleets. Picking on pirates just doesn't seem to be worth the trouble. Its not like they're running drugs.

    just mho though. ask my sister she's the one with the law degree.

    Not that I have anything against pirates. ~wink~ I'm just more of a ninja type lady!

    --
    ~WBGG~ "And I'm so sad like a good book I can't put this Day Back a sorta fairytale with you" ~Tori Amos
  16. Re:Registration required... by bstempi · · Score: 0, Troll

    Everybody did already think or even write here that Zonk is not needed.

    English...do you speak it, mothafucka?

  17. ZEUS remotely operated vehicle (ROV) by wakaranai · · Score: 4, Informative

    Apparently, the ZEUS ROV is used by Odyssey Marine Exploration in the search for artifacts. It weighs 7.3 tonnes (in air) and is 3.2 metres long, and it can operate down to depths of 2500 metres.

    It was originally designed for the maintenance of deep-ocean fibre optic cables, and has manipulators and high-resolution video feeds that allow items to be handled with great precision

    http://shipwreck.net/zeus/

    1. Re:ZEUS remotely operated vehicle (ROV) by Soulshift · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...It weighs 7.3 tonnes (in air)... I'm sure you mean that its mass is 7.3 tonnes...
      --
      node-def: a tactical hacking sim. Now in open beta.
    2. Re:ZEUS remotely operated vehicle (ROV) by failedlogic · · Score: 1

      Yeah but where do I buy one ..... and Where are do i find ye pirate treasure hidden 'yonder? There must be some maps ..... ;)

    3. Re:ZEUS remotely operated vehicle (ROV) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you please convert that in Libraries of Congress?

    4. Re:ZEUS remotely operated vehicle (ROV) by timeOday · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you mean that its mass is 7.3 tonnes...
      Don't worry, so far it has only been used on or near the surface of planet earth.
  18. Disregard this post - the parent has been removed by janrinok · · Score: 0, Redundant

    This post is now superfluous - the parent to which it referred has been deleted. I wonder why they left this one floating in nowhere-land?

    --
    Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
  19. Not Quite Indiana Jones by \\ · · Score: 5, Funny

    Indiana Jones would've put that shit in a Museum, not paid dividends to his shareholders.

    1. Re:Not Quite Indiana Jones by WannaBeGeekGirl · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Too bad Indi was neither a pirate, ninja or politician...

      I agree though, I was raised by two pacific Archaeologists and they're not exactly fans of pirates either. Pot hunters, big corporations that fake the land and archaeological impact data requirements are pretty much pirates of a sort. They pillage and destroy with greed their soul goal, no diplomacy and guilt of the scientific data destroyed and peoples and cultures they've offended.

      Too bad my parents are pacifists, it would have been cool to see them bust out a whip at Mesa Verde, CO when they busted a tourist swiping artifacts.
      ~WBGG

      --
      ~WBGG~ "And I'm so sad like a good book I can't put this Day Back a sorta fairytale with you" ~Tori Amos
    2. Re:Not Quite Indiana Jones by Nutria · · Score: 1
      Indiana Jones would've put that shit in a Museum, not paid dividends to his shareholders.

      You need to go watch the movies again.

      He was a contract adventurer, hired by the University to steal specific artifacts. Remember the opening scene of RotLA?

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    3. Re:Not Quite Indiana Jones by maxume · · Score: 1

      They just happened to be willing to pay him for the artifacts, "no questions asked" and all that.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:Not Quite Indiana Jones by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      No, as you recall Indiana Jones would have (given the setting) uncovered some great mystical Cthulhoid plot which, when all was said and done, would have resulted in the spectacular destruction of at least one world-significant historical site and then had all evidence locked away in a government storage facility under "TOP SECRET" classification.

      I think dividends to shareholders actually sounds a lot safer to us innocent bystanders.

      --
      -Styopa
    5. Re:Not Quite Indiana Jones by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      The heritage of Archaeologists isn't that rosy, either. Grab them mummies from where they've been secure for centuries. Stick 'em in a steel-and-glass building in a big city, in a glass display case and let school children mill by. Scientists believe in whatever the current version of 'science' is and act in pursuit of grant funding.

      I don't think that's what the mummified people intended.

      We're actually better off if NOBODY discovers 'the relics' for a few more centuries. The longer we wait before a bunch of meddlers dig it all up, the more information and knowledge that will be retreivable. Today's 'scientists' will one day be viewed the same as the 1900 era 'archaeologists' who unearthed grave sites. You do know that literally tons of the mummified animal (mostly cat) that were extracted were sold as fertilizer and/or burned as fuel, right? Those were the 'leading scientists' of their day. I'm sure they needed the 'funding' to do their 'science.'

    6. Re:Not Quite Indiana Jones by WannaBeGeekGirl · · Score: 1

      Now see, my parents and many of their collegues wouldn't consider "grave robbers" and a lot of what you find in museums a product of authentic archaeology. (You can discredit most of the sciences if you look back on those that misused the knowledge of a field. Thats a cheap shot.) Archaeology branches off from anthropology and much of the study I saw was done with incredible respect to the cultures and peoples being studied. The approach was that if you disturb the culture, the environment, etc... you have destroyed your goal.

      If one is careful, skillful and tolerant, unmotivated by power and greed, the social science goals can be achieved. No one has to sell out an artifact or a culture. Especially with technology evolving, museums need not sell their souls and pay out huge sums to treasure hunters that steal and sell to the highest bidders.

      I can learn as much about a beautifully crafted Native American pot that will be kept behind glass, untouchable, in a museum from digital photography, and data modeling exhibits using affordable PC/Mac technology found in higher ed institutions. That way the pot remains where it should be, after careful study done with permission, data recording and hopefully no one is offended.

      Of course, when science meets spirituality, you will always find conflict. You can only hope that cooler heads prevail. A respect for learning and an equal respect for culture balance out. It depends on your POV.

      I just don't like blanket statements. I've met more archaeologists that were not grabbing anything to sell or put in museums. They were poor, hard-working scientists that loved their jobs and often funded their own science. Indiana Jones and that stacked lady from the videogame that was made into a bad movie starring Angelina Jolie are exceptions, hardly rules. If you're running through the halls of science looking for pirates and sell-outs, you can't just blame the archaeologists because they have shovels and mud on their hands!

      --
      ~WBGG~ "And I'm so sad like a good book I can't put this Day Back a sorta fairytale with you" ~Tori Amos
    7. Re:Not Quite Indiana Jones by DavidV · · Score: 1

      'They pillage and destroy with greed their soul goal, no diplomacy and guilt of the scientific data destroyed and peoples and cultures they've offended.'

      Peoples cultures offended? Maybe some pirates in south-east Asia will be upset about there predecessors on the other side of the world having their remains disturbed. The only others I can think of are Sweden's politicians the Pirate Party

      I agree about the scientific data but, I'm not sure we have to worry about the pirate culture being offended though.

      --
      !sig
    8. Re:Not Quite Indiana Jones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I understand your point correctly, you're saying we should consider the pirate's point of view too? I agree, culture contains what I would define as good and evil (the pirates and the pirated) and that both must be preserved and respected to be studied scientifically.

      Beyond that though I supposed we'd have to agree to disagree. Because I see that at some point there must be a line drawn on pirating that involves pillaging because of my views on how violence affects mass cultures. Keep in mind, not all pirates rely on violence. The easiest example would be the software pirate. Please read carefully above before you start to whine about me taking a side in the software pirate holy war. I only agreed it must be respected to study it.

      The great thing about opinions is we all get one though. I'm going to be a weenie and post AP so as not to start any unintended flame wars in case I misunderstood.

    9. Re:Not Quite Indiana Jones by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "Scientists believe in whatever the current version of 'science' is and act in pursuit of grant funding."

      Just a note to save any further embarassment for you: Your post is displaying your ignorance in an embarrasing fashion.

      OTOH: You are obviously not a scientist so I suppose you can be forgiven for not knowing the definition of science or how it is funded.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  20. A Federal Judge...? by glawrie · · Score: 0, Troll

    What has a federal judge got to do with property rights 40 miles off English coastline? I knew that the US had ambitions of a colonial nature, but this surely is a step too far...! Or is it that the UK has quietly become a federation while I slept?

    1. Re:A Federal Judge...? by rollx · · Score: 1
      From TFA

      The site is beyond the territorial waters or legal jurisdiction of any country
    2. Re:A Federal Judge...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think its just a technicality to prove that the gold/silver isn't stolen( in case someone trys to claim it was) . It also makes the items worth more with proper proof that it's not fraudulent

    3. Re:A Federal Judge...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah I thought Britannia ruled the waves! I suppose the US rules the tresure undeneath them then :)
       
      Seriously though I don't think the parent should be modded troll, it seems a bit too far to be classed as US territorial waters.

  21. Re:Registration required... by WannaBeGeekGirl · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I hope this is in jest. Zonk is a stand up guy. Don't grief him in the middle of a discussion about an article he posted. Take it up with the proper channels. Have some civility and common sense please. Unless this was a friendly dig at a buddy, leave the angry sentiments to email instead of a public forum. Its just not approprate.

    Even pirates and ninjas know better how to handle personality disputes, in a discrete manner.

    Zonk, I got your back, whether you're a pirate guy or a ninja dude. Personal attacks in public forums are on the level of 3rd graders and the current presidental administration. ~ducks~

    --
    ~WBGG~ "And I'm so sad like a good book I can't put this Day Back a sorta fairytale with you" ~Tori Amos
  22. Re:As the sunken vessel lies in international wate by Instine · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Exactly. What has a 'federal judge' got to do with something off the coast of England?

    --
    Because you can - or because you should?
  23. Obligatory... by penguin_dance · · Score: 1

    They later found they were just caught up in a Pirates of the Caribbean 3 promotion.

    --
    If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
  24. Motley Fool profiled the Odyssey corp. by SpzToid · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here's a partial write-up from Motley Fool . com: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2003/08/19/s triking-investment-gold.aspx?vstest=search_042607_ linkdefault

    from 2003:

    "Odyssey does not have enough assets to list on the Nasdaq National Market, so it trades on the highly speculative Bulletin Board exchange, a place investors should all but categorically avoid. We all dream of finding a hidden gem cheap and riding it to riches, but you're much more likely to find your fortune on the Nasdaq or NYSE, trading in double digits.

    We're looking at Odyssey today as an exception, because it's August, half of you are on vacation, and this company has a heck of a fun story -- but all the fun is in the treasure hunting, not the stock.

    Like flotsam (or a dead fish), the stock has drifted without purpose from moon to moon, just waiting for a current to carry it. In July, Odyssey announced the discovery of an unnamed steamer, and over the next month speculators lifted the shares from $1.50 to $2.95. After news of the SS Republic broke last weekend, Odyssey's stock opened Monday above $5, valuing the company at $140 million -- a price rivaling the maximum value of the discovery."

    Now the stock is over $8.

    --
    You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
    1. Re:Motley Fool profiled the Odyssey corp. by adrianbye · · Score: 1

      And what is interesting about the stock at over $8, the company is still only valued at $390M, despite this apparently being a $500M find. We could also assume they will find more of these in future, but the market is not prepared to value that.

    2. Re:Motley Fool profiled the Odyssey corp. by segedunum · · Score: 1

      We're looking at Odyssey today as an exception, because it's August, half of you are on vacation, and this company has a heck of a fun story -- but all the fun is in the treasure hunting, not the stock.
      Funny, thanks for the interesting info. So basically, they're most probably full of it in order to raise their stock price?
  25. Re:Disregard this post - the parent has been remov by Threni · · Score: 1

    Posts don't get removed from Slashdot. Check your comment threshold.

  26. Re:As the sunken vessel lies in international wate by tumbleweedsi · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Well we all saw in Iraq what happened to people who ignored America's version of 'International' Law.

    --
    Be nice, sponsor me: http://jailbreak.ragabonds.org.uk
  27. Re:Registration required... by bstempi · · Score: 1

    You had better hope that Bush doesn't user the inter-pipes

  28. How is the valuation done? by redblue · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Presumably $500m is due to the historical value of the coins, not their mass. How do they go about making sure counterfeits are not slipped in? I would think that modern metallurgy is (IMNAM) advanced enough to fabricate any desired ratio isotopes in an alloy. Smells like Pump and Dump to me...

  29. Idiots, it's "off" ANY nation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Found Off England", besides making no sense, makes it sound like this was some English-only thing. What was found was found on international water. As such, it's "Off" anything - including America, China, Antarctica, and even Pluto.

    What's next? "Intelligence Found Off Zonk"?

    1. Re:Idiots, it's "off" ANY nation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Don't you think it makes sense to say "found off England" than to say "found 2819 miles off Florida"? Or is there something wrong with giving an indication of the location?

    2. Re:Idiots, it's "off" ANY nation! by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · · Score: 1

      ""Found Off England", besides making no sense, makes it sound like this was some English-only thing." Aye, you're absolutely correct. From now on I'm going to refer to the Titanic as a ship that sank off the coast of New Zealand, the Bermuda Triangle as a region off the coast of Sierra Leone, and the Principality of Sealand as a sea-fort off the coast of Chile. I mean - it's all one big ocean, right? Wahey! I'm gonna become a geography teacher! Ph33r m3 4 1 4m 133t !!!eleventy-one!!!

      --
      This is where the serious fun begins.
    3. Re:Idiots, it's "off" ANY nation! by segedunum · · Score: 1

      What was found was found on international water. As such, it's "Off" anything - including America, China, Antarctica, and even Pluto.
      A lot of people just don't understand this. It's actually not in international waters if the last few years are anything to go by (even the US has claimed jurisdiction of its EEZ for all sorts of purposes) and there is still the question of ownership concerns - which many still expect to happen. See the quoted Motley Fool article above. Salvage does not give you exclusive rights or ownership to anything. It is an understanding that you will be adequately recompensed for your salvage efforts. It could even be deemed a heritage site.

      Maritime law is full of grey areas and niceties to be observed because of the lack of clear jurisdiction. If you don't pay attention to them your salvage operation is likely to end up dead in the water with no items recovered and no money.
  30. RTFA, dumbass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    You're a dumbass. Territorial waters and airspace extend 12 nautical miles from the coastline. Admirality law, which is an internationally recognized set of laws, allows anyone to get any national judge to declare property abandoned in the high seas. They, being a US company, asked a US judge to do this. 40 nm off the coast is not territorial water, the brits have no territorial control over it. It could just as legally been a Pakistani company asking a Pakistani judge. You, sir, a typical, useless, slashtard.

    1. Re:RTFA, dumbass by segedunum · · Score: 1, Troll

      You're a dumbass. Territorial waters and airspace extend 12 nautical miles from the coastline.
      No, that's not the way things work. The sphere of influence extends beyond that, dipshit:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_Economic_Zo ne

      12 nautical miles of territorial waters is the immediate control any nation has over the seaways around its coastline. As for the use of natural resources, salvage and marine resources, this logically has had to extend an awful lot further. There has been a general requirement to request permission from the nation when salvaging in their economic zones as in the case of a vessel Japan have been salvaging in China's zone in 2002. This wreck site could also come under cultural heritage agreements, although this is slightly sketchy. Salvage law is not applicable to that though.

      They, being a US company, asked a US judge to do this. 40 nm off the coast is not territorial water, the brits have no territorial control over it.
      Yes, they do. See above. Seems like a judge needs to read something about current maritime law, but the US never ceases to surprise me.

      You, sir, a typical, useless, slashtard.
      Typical anonymous fuckwit who thinks he can quote RTFA. But there you are.
    2. Re:RTFA, dumbass by Watson+Ladd · · Score: 1

      RTFWA. The US has not signed the Law of the Sea treaty. So the EEZ is not recognized in American law.

      --
      Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
    3. Re:RTFA, dumbass by segedunum · · Score: 1

      RTFWA. The US has not signed the Law of the Sea treaty. So the EEZ is not recognized in American law.
      The US does not own the seas and oceans. The US actually has signed up to the EEZ - but it just hasn't ratified the agreement it comes under. A US judge can't just sign something away because it doesn't recognise something that another country does.
    4. Re:RTFA, dumbass by segedunum · · Score: 1

      One thing I should add is that even though the US has not ratified the treaty, it has still claimed jurisdiction over its EEZ zone in the past. Go figure.

  31. Re:Registration required... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With those kind of crowd pleasing ass-licking skills, you'd be popular in prison.

  32. Re:As the sunken vessel lies in international wate by Nutria · · Score: 1
    Exactly. What has a 'federal judge' got to do with something off the coast of England?

    There are treaties that enumerate all this. Depending on what the treaties say, Odyssey Marine Exploration might have to turn over a chunk of the profits to England.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  33. Re:The exact location of the wreck still undisclos by l3mr · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is no map. It looks like...dancing lessons.

    --
    The world always seems brighter when you've just made something that wasn't there before. - Neil Gaiman
  34. Yeah by joshsnow · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The coins -- mostly silver pieces -- could fetch several hundred to several thousand dollars each, with some possibly commanding much more, he said.

    Not if there are thousands of them. Scarcity adds value. Hmmm 40 miles of the coast of England and they seek jurisdiction in a US courtroom? Sounds like a job for the SBS...

  35. Re:As the sunken vessel lies in international wate by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is all guesswork on my part from bits and pieces I've picked up, but at 40 miles from the UK, the UK government has no jurisdiction. The ship sank hundreds of years ago, so has no actual owners (and if I understand it, a ship abandoned or sunk in international waters has no owners anyway). I think international treaties essentially have a "finders keepers" rule for wrecks, but national law may still require companies to go through some legal processes to prove that they were the first people there and they do actually have salvage rights.

  36. Supply and demand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The coins -- mostly silver pieces -- could fetch several hundred to several thousand dollars each

    Somehow I doubt that unleashing half a million of these '$1000' coins onto the market isn't going to drastically lower their going rate.

    Supply and demand, anyone?

  37. The Fools by gijoel · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's only a matter of time before they realise the treasure is cursed and they have to go out and fight Johnny Depp. Then stab Orlando Bloom.

    So I guess it isn't all bad news.

  38. Re:Registration required... by WannaBeGeekGirl · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Hey, you're angry at someone else, but I don't ass-lick. I give respect where its earned. If you don't like Zonk fine. But don't call me a kiss-up just because I stand up for people I respect. When I issue a compliment or stand up for someone its genuine. You're basing your assement of *my* character on one post. Thats shallow. And this is OT. So lets agree to disagree about your feelings toward him and get back to pirate treasure.

    --
    ~WBGG~ "And I'm so sad like a good book I can't put this Day Back a sorta fairytale with you" ~Tori Amos
  39. Re:As the sunken vessel lies in international wate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As has been said 90 times in other posts, the Federal judge was not giving them permission to take the gold. They don't need to ask permission to take shit out of international waters. The Judge was involved only to give them the official guarantee that the salvage operation was legitimate. Or basically just telling everyone who might ask "Yes, this was all done above the table".

  40. Re:As the sunken vessel lies in international wate by jcr · · Score: 4, Informative

    Admiralty law, established by treaties that just about every country with a coastline are parties to.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  41. Not exactly by sid0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Weighs" IIRC is an acceptable substitute for measuring the mass.

    What will you say, "it masses 7.3 tonnes?"

    1. Re:Not exactly by gardyloo · · Score: 1

      What will you say, "it masses 7.3 tonnes?" It may be because I'm a physicist, and spend far too much time around people who DO say things like this, but yes. To my mind, using "masses" in this way doesn't sound funny at all. This terminology is, of course (as anyone who's taken an introductory physics class has been told over and over again), technically more correct than saying it "weighs 7.3 tonnes".

            However, I AM annoyed when physicists automatically correct anyone using "weight" or "weighs" like this, and try to only make the point five or six times to a given class in a semester. ;-)
  42. Re:Registration required... by WannaBeGeekGirl · · Score: 1

    "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people." ~V, V For Vendetta (2005)

    I still believe in my country's Bill of Rights.

    --
    ~WBGG~ "And I'm so sad like a good book I can't put this Day Back a sorta fairytale with you" ~Tori Amos
  43. I'm sure this is illegal? by rlobue · · Score: 1

    As a Brit, I've grown up knowing that any treasure found on british land is the property of the queen... that is why treasure hunters here are doing it for prestige and not money. I'm sure this would extend to UK waters. I don't understand how a judge would, nay, COULD grant exclusive rights, that also makes no sense. I just come to the conclusion that either the company is lying or the company is going to get a law suit soon.

    1. Re:I'm sure this is illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may have no value, but it means no one else will bother, and by the time the judge gets told his ruling is useless because he has no authority to make rulings about OTHER COUNTRIES! They will have excavated everything bought it back to America, avoiding all the necessary costs of say, doing it legally, and they'll sell it.

    2. Re:I'm sure this is illegal? by Threni · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > I'm sure this would extend to UK waters.

      The coins weren't found in UK waters.

    3. Re:I'm sure this is illegal? by Speedracer1870 · · Score: 1

      I'm SURE this is perfectly legal. It is in international waters, that would mean it does not belong to the queen. International waters are defined as waters that are more than 12 nautical miles (more than a statute mile) from the coastline or the established baseline. These waters belong to no nation. This is why Iran does not just go out and seize ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz, especially when they are on the Oman side of the Strait. There are different laws governing the high seas, which even include traffic laws. The queen can do nothing to a vessel operating lawfully in waters to which her laws do not apply. YAR! GIVE UP THE BOOTY!

    4. Re:I'm sure this is illegal? by segedunum · · Score: 1

      The coins weren't found in UK waters.
      They were found in the EEZ, which has become something of a grey area in the last few years. Even the US claim jurisdiction there. There is also the question of ownership, which being s salvager does not give you. It is merely an understanding of recompense. Lifting stuff straight from a wreck site on the basis of being in international waters is a bit of a bad idea. I wouldn't want to be an investor in them.
    5. Re:I'm sure this is illegal? by joss · · Score: 1

      > I've grown up knowing that any
      You are badly misinformed. http://hmcoroner.powys.gov.uk/index.php?id=8

      "If you find any ancient artefact take it to your local museum or police station. All Treasure finds must be reported to the Coroner within 14 days. Failure to do so is a criminal offence. The Coroner will contact the relevant body to investigate your find.

      If the find is declared to be Treasure then it may be claimed by the Crown and if so the Treasure Valuation Committee will value the find and you will be awarded the full market value of the Treasure. "

      ie, the crown or a museum can claim it, but then they need to pay you the full market value. If they're not interested, you just keep it, this is just to stop items of historical interest from just being melted down or items of cultural interest from leaving the country. You might want to reexamine some other stuff you've "grown up knowing.."

      --
      http://rareformnewmedia.com/
  44. "It belongs in a museum!" *Whack* by Albinoman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Indiana Jones seemed to be more out there to uncover history for the world, and to keep artifacts out of the hands of private owners.

  45. *Federal* judge? by CountBrass · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'm curious to know how a US judge would have any jurisdiction over a wreck 40 miles off the English coast?

    --
    Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    1. Re:*Federal* judge? by arivanov · · Score: 1

      None.

      And while it is an interesting wreck it is not the "mother of all wrecks" anyway.

      I am waiting for the day when someone will find the damn place somewhere off Kadis, where the Spaniards dumped all those thousands of tons of Platinum from the Aztec and Inca empires so that it "does not devalue the value of silver in the old world".

      Now that one will turn the world upside down (though it is likely to be 1km+ depth so getting our grubby hands on it will be rather difficult).

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
  46. Re:Registration required... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really? I can't decide if that's very brave or very stupid. Perhaps a bit of both.

  47. Re:As the sunken vessel lies in international wate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    America lies off the coast of England.

  48. Re:As the sunken vessel lies in international wate by mce · · Score: 5, Informative

    a ship abandoned or sunk in international waters has no owners anyway

    Unless it is a war grave. In that case, the ship is forever owned by the government of the country that it sailed for, or its internationally recognised sucessor, no matter whose waters the wreck is located in. HMS Hood is property of the UK government, despite her position in international waters. KM Bismarck is property of the German government (I don't know which Germany would have been considered owner between 1945 and 1990, but it doesn't matter: either one would have been "done the trick").

  49. There was no British Fleet in 1694 by stevedcc · · Score: 1

    The article states:

    In January, Odyssey won permission from the Spanish government to resume a suspended search for the wreck of the HMS Sussex, which was leading a British fleet into the Mediterranean Sea for a war against France in 1694 when it sank in a storm off Gibraltar.

    But the union of the parliaments between Scotland and England didn't happen until 1707. Therefore there was no British fleet in 1694; it was an English fleet.

    --
    todo - The developer's equivalent of confession: "Forgive me Father, for I have sinned..."
    1. Re:There was no British Fleet in 1694 by CryptoDavid · · Score: 1
      Not quite correct.
      The navy (and foreign policy) comes under the royal prerogative (aka executive branch in modern parlance.) Although political union didn't occur until 1707, executive union happened on 24th March 1603 when King James VI of Scotland became King James I of England. He was keen on political union of his countries, but was limited by the parliaments to a few unilateral measures. So he proclaimed himself King of Great Britain on October 1604 (a title also assumed by Charles I) and in 1606 decreed that all ships of England and Scotland fly a common, Union flag.

      Hence a war fleet of 1694 probably wouldn't have been described as British at the time, but might have included Scottish ships (if any were left after the Civil war), so 'English fleet' could be misleading.

      But what I'd really like to know is what are these $500m colonial coins mentioned in the TFA? Were the colonies issuing coins in 1694? And were they just like the real British (ok, Anglo-Scottish) coins - but when you find one in your change and try to spend it, you discover it's not legal tender?

  50. Ecomomic Zone by fozzmeister · · Score: 1

    An exclusive economic zone extends for 200 nautical miles (370 km) beyond the baselines of the territorial sea, thus it includes the territorial sea and its contiguous zone.[3] A coastal nation has control of all economic resources within its exclusive economic zone, including fishing, mining, oil exploration, and any pollution of those resources. However, it cannot regulate or prohibit passage or loitering above, on, or under the surface of the sea, whether innocent or belligerent, within that portion of its exclusive economic zone beyond its territorial sea. Before 1982, coastal nations arbitrarily extended their territorial waters in an effort to control activities which are now regulated by the exclusive economic zone, such as offshore oil exploration or fishing rights (see Cod War). Indeed, the exclusive economic zone is still popularly, though erroneously, called a coastal nation's territorial waters.

  51. Re:As the sunken vessel lies in international wate by crc32 · · Score: 1

    They're not pirates, they're salvagers.

    --
    "In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." -- Carl Sagan, Cosmos
  52. Re:As the sunken vessel lies in international wate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would it be English? It could very well be Dutch.

  53. International Law and traditional maritime law by hey! · · Score: 5, Informative

    Recovery of such artifacts are covered by either national or international law depending on what kind of waters they are in.

    Longstanding tradition has included a law of salvage and a law of finds. The law of salvage covers vessels in peril or goods lost that are still claimed by its owner. There is also a long tradition of ignoring the law of savage when nobody was around to enforce it. The law of finds covers vessels like this that have been abandoned by its owners. Such vessels become the property of the first person to start recovery attempts, although there are provisos when such discoveries are made in areas owned by others and would interfere with those others' rights (e.g. you can own treasure found on somebody else's property, but not necessarily if you have to dig it up).

    The US and several other nations assert an exception for military wrecks; they claim that such wrecks remain the property of the flag country, even if sunken in territorial waters of other nations. Recovering artifacts from such ships is equivalen to boarding them.

    Outside of those considerations, nations may regulate recovery activities in various zones of authority.

    There are five legal navigational zones: inland waterways and lakes; territorial seas (12 mile limit); contiguous seas (24 mile limit); and the exclsuive economic zone (200 miles), and the high seas. Within the 12 mile limit, nations are sovereign. Within the twenty four mile limit, they may impose certain regulations, including retrieval of underwater artifacts of archaelogical or historical significance.

    Outside the 24 mile limit, they may not regulate recovery of underwater artifacts AFAIK. The 200 mile EEZ only applies to natural resources.

    So, given the apparent location of the wreck in question, the UK does not have authority to grant or deny ownership to anywone per se; but they can recognize title gained by private individuals under traditional international maritime law.

    International conventions have been proposed to protect underwater culutral heritage -- human made artifacts and vessels that have been underwater for more than 100 years -- on the high seas. The conventions state that any archaeological wreck is to be managed with the benefit of humanity in mind; preferably preserved in situ, but otherwise disposed of in a way consistent with it being the common heritage of all humanity. These conventions have not been ratified by enough nations to be considered in force. The US is one of the nations which objects, primariliy because we claim sovereignty over military wrecks. I dont' doubt that the spirit of the new conventions are loathsome to the current administration's principles.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:International Law and traditional maritime law by Speedracer1870 · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, I seem to remember this from the fine print on the back of my Z-card. Why didn't I read the fine print before...

    2. Re:International Law and traditional maritime law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In that case the US should have no problems with the UK claiming the wreck. The HMS Sussex is an English military vessel and by the USA's own standards the US courts have no authority over it. Or is this going to be yet another case of US double standards?

    3. Re:International Law and traditional maritime law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's cool is that after 400 years Her Majesty's Royal Navy is still around to claim the ship if they so choose. It's doubtful though that there are any military secrets worth protecting down there...

    4. Re:International Law and traditional maritime law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, the Odyssey had a permission from the Spanish government to _investigate_, but not _recover_, in waters close to Gibraltar to try and locate the HMS Sussex (sunk in 1694), and the fact that they have made this announcement without saying where the heck that stuff came from has made the Spanish government suspicious. There's a good chance they have, indeed, recovered this stuff from somewhere they weren't authorized to.

      http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2007/05/19/cultura/1 179591698.html (In Spanish, couldn't find an English news source).

    5. Re:International Law and traditional maritime law by segedunum · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Odyssey had a permission from the Spanish government to _investigate_, but not _recover_, in waters close to Gibraltar to try and locate the HMS Sussex (sunk in 1694), and the fact that they have made this announcement without saying where the heck that stuff came from has made the Spanish government suspicious. There's a good chance they have, indeed, recovered this stuff from somewhere they weren't authorized to.
      Indeed. Many salvage companies have played fast and loose with the grey areas and goodwill generally required in maritime laws, tradition and salvage over the years (which is why post 1994 there have been attempts to firm it all up), and unless the Ps and Qs and legal angles are observed, if they gain a bad reputation the chances of them working on any other shipwreck sites are greatly reduced.
    6. Re:International Law and traditional maritime law by More_Cowbell · · Score: 1
      The 200 mile EEZ only applies to natural resources.

      According to wikipedia:

      "an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is a seazone over which a state has special rights over the exploration and use of marine resources."

      To me that sounds like they _could_ apply that to shipwrecked treasure.

      --
      Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
    7. Re:International Law and traditional maritime law by danlock4 · · Score: 1
      The article (TFA) says this:

      But under the terms of an agreement, Odyssey will have to share any finds with the British government. The company will get 80 percent of the first $45 million and about 50 percent of the proceeds thereafter.
      --
      To .sig or not to .sig, that is the question.
  54. Re:As the sunken vessel lies in international wate by BakaHoushi · · Score: 3, Funny

    Argh, the term ye be lookin' fer is "pre-emptive nautical salvage experts" or simply "pastafarians."

  55. no mention of the tech involved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This company uses lots of very high-tech equipment to locate, preserve, document, and extract artifacts from deep shipwrecks. They recovered yankee, confederate, and state coins from the SS Republic which sank in 1965 just after the War of Northern Aggression (aka Civil War) just off the FL/GA border in about 1700' depth (500M).

    Check out their site: http://www.shipwreck.net/

  56. how valuable is it? by ashwinds · · Score: 1

    "wide variety of coins that probably were never circulated" = $500 Million A ship wreck full of them = $ ??

  57. Re:As the sunken vessel lies in international wate by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Depending on what the treaties say, Odyssey Marine Exploration might have to turn over a chunk of the profits to England."

    I didn't read the article linked to on /. but one from the toronto star,

    "But under the terms of an agreement, Odyssey will have to share any finds with the British government. The company will get 80 per cent of the first $45 million and about 50 per cent of proceeds thereafter."

  58. Nice way to launder money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, I found a found of ship full of valuable coins and artifacts at a secret location in international waters. Like a good treasure hunter I sold off my booty to anonymous international collectors. Now leave me alone. Oh, that's right this is a publicly traded company. Want to buy some shares of my treasure hunting company? Don't worry, our assets are in top secret locations in international waters.

  59. US Navy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US Navy claims perpetual ownership of all its ships and aircraft that are sunken, no matter where, on the entire planet. In the past, they've waited for someone else to recover, for example an aircraft from the sea bottom, and then they move in via the courts and take it away from them and offer no compensation for the private party's money that was expended in the recover of the craft.

  60. Re:As the sunken vessel lies in international wate by Ksisanth · · Score: 1

    That agreement apparently refers to a different site:

    In January, Odyssey won permission from the Spanish government to resume a suspended search for the wreck of the HMS Sussex, which was leading a British fleet into the Mediterranean Sea for a war against France in 1694 when it sank in a storm off Gibraltar.

    Historians believe the almost-50-metre warship was carrying more than eight tonnes of gold coins to buy the loyalty of the Duke of Savoy, a potential ally in southeastern France. Odyssey believes those coins could also fetch more than $500 million.

    But under the terms of an agreement, Odyssey will have to share any finds with the British government. The company will get 80 per cent of the first $45 million and about 50 per cent of proceeds thereafter.

    http://www.thestar.com/News/article/215550

  61. Learn the LAW cunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "As for the use of natural resources, salvage and marine resources"

    Natural and Marine resources, yes, salvage? Nope. You're completely wrong about that.

    "Seems like a judge needs to read something about current maritime law, but the US never ceases to surprise me."

    No, asshole it looks like YOU do, they asked the federal judge to give them an order for admiralty arrest.

    STFU now or learn the fucking law douche. And I'm not even the orgincal AC.

    1. Re:Learn the LAW cunt by segedunum · · Score: 1

      Natural and Marine resources, yes, salvage? Nope. You're completely wrong about that.
      Sorry, but there have been precedents and grey areas for this, especially in the last few years and since 1994 when this was thrashed out. The salvage of a ship within China's EEZ zone by Japan in 2002 has been a case in point. It's called the UN convention on the Law of the Sea, which the US has actually signed I believe but not ratified (it doesn't matter anyway - it's still not their waters). Hell, even the US has claimed jurisdiction over its EEZ, so it can't claim it doesn't recognise it.

      No, asshole it looks like YOU do, they asked the federal judge to give them an order for admiralty arrest.
      Sorry, but that's just not enough nowadays. You need to get permission from the countries' EEZ zones you'll be working in to clear it with them, and the shipwreck may well be a war grave or can now be considered as a cultural heritage site which would apply in this case. You can't just pull artifacts from a site, ship them out and sell them for profit. These have been prompted by the free-for-alls like the Titanic salvages. There are any number of Is to dot and Ts to cross. These days you cannot just invoke an international waters and admiralty clause and get a federal judge to sign it over to you. The US also has the Abandoned Shipwreck Act to consider in each case. If that is all they did then these people are indeed incompetent. However, this seems to be the typical US centred attitude to everything.

      Oh, and if you're going to call someone a cunt, is it too much to ask for you to actually do some fucking research first and learn what the laws actually fucking well are and how they've actually been applied in real cases, OK?

      STFU now or learn the fucking law douche.
      I love it when people have their own idea of what the law is versus what it actually is in the real world and how it's applied, but there you go.
  62. Get Underpants by Joebert · · Score: 1
    1. Buy gold at low prices
    2. ...
    3. Discover 400 year old shipwreck containing mint-condition coins when the price of gold is soaring & keep the location secret
    4. Profit !
    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
  63. Re:As the sunken vessel lies in international wate by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

    I think you meant to say that we saw in Kuwait what happened to people who ignored Iraq's version of International Law.

    I could be wrong.

  64. Re:As the sunken vessel lies in international wate by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    "Well we all saw in Iraq what happened to people who ignored America's version of 'International' Law."

    Yeah, that's why the 'Axis of Evil' was wiped off the map.

    Godwin, much?

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  65. I sense a stunt by XScB · · Score: 1

    And the new Pirates of the Carribean movie is released when exactly?

    This is old news, spun up by the movie PR to promote the movie.

  66. Not so. Congressional Supplements to Cert' Admir. by NRAdude · · Score: 0
    No lien needs to be done. Salvage is non-domestic. According to Congressional Supplements to Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims, all "seizures on land" and "wage garnishments" go through a District Court. This would isolate that Specie coined is without denomination if the title/debt-currency evaluation is not stamped on the face. It would go to say that a face on a coin is legal title to societal appraisal the coin conveys, as opposed to the the verry asset or material content of the coin. Coin that lacks any of said FACE VALUE would be redeemed as lawful money, otherwise as mere numismatic tokens. This is why even in codes comprised of inclusion to negotiable instruments Law that whomever is Negotiating the value of an instrumend it would need to be acknowledged by stamp or allonge that it is accepted for value. This is why on every Receipt of product, good, or service that comes into my Hold, that I endorse with red ink on the face with the following statement;

    Conditionally accepted for value, and
    Conditionaly agreed, but upon Proof of Claim.
    -c.m. the Gregory Thomas(tm)

    whereis it is then signed in black ink;

    /$N/ MUNDT, without prejudice.


    The larger question in administrative tribunals that prevail to lay dormant a Court of record is the question of "claim" and "proof of claim" whereas stray from that denizen would be a benefit of the inferior "courts" for the state-child "citizen" to practice presenting and isolating mere fact and process from a pre-araigned script property of the original estate. What this would mean to say is the separation of legal name from true name, but nonetheless: Commerce creates title to property, and internationally this is known by use of the copyright administrative executice codes incorporated as Uniform Commercial Code (property of Unidroit). Lawful Money tends to have the legal title printed on its face, so none can create a title to a title.

    There was a case in Canada of a man that emptied his savings account of debt currency into a brief-case; carrying that reem of monetized paper, he boarded a bus which shortly wrecked and burned with his life-savings of debt-notes strayed. He presented the issue to the corporation that facilitated his draw to the registry that day (fictitious bank), and fresh debt-notes were printed pursuant to Canada and its insurance policy self-evident in their debt-note system. A corporation from the District of Columbia, known to work in concert with another corporation known as "United States", also provides insurance policy for its non-negotiable non-redeemable non-promisory notes that are printed with its intellectual property; that FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM is no different as to replace those debt notes, and wave of insurance policy in accord to Title 12 Sec. 411 of US Code would reveal a plain mint-paper to remove the 2-cent finance and 6% gold interest that FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM enforces over currency that is not discharged of its face of its charter back to the original non-interest bearing United States Notes that were printed durring the terms but then haulted after the assassination of United States Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy.

    Oh and to take the prior story to a close, it was ruled that if someone had drawn their lawful money from their bank, that if it were lost in transit or destroyed, the bank was not liable; it is in banking code to acknowledge that every deposit to a bank is property of the bank--meaning a "deposit" of a monetisized instrument would be more honest to know that as a sale of your original bank note for an insurance policy with the standing legal monopoly, to sell such for an appraisal in their intellectual properties and service ("I sold my pay-check for Federal Reserve Notes of similar value" is accurate).

    Salvage under the Seas would suffice the same as a fisherman's expedition if he ever pulled a coin from the mouth of a fish then that become his property at hand should he desire to prosecute the fish for not abateing his aluring offer of gain (be it a worm or shiney metal).

    Funny world, legal=!law.
    --
    without prejudice
  67. This is the making of Disney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ha. Disney pulled one over on all of you.

    In a concentrated effort to beat out spiderman 3's record-breaking day (after all the title belonged to dead man's chest previously) Disney intentionally threw away 400 million dollars in what may be considered the strangest ad campaign to date. But you fell for it. You didn't think that the May 25 release date of pirates 3 was a coincidence, did you?

  68. Re:As the sunken vessel lies in international wate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Argh, the term ye be lookin' fer is "pre-emptive nautical salvage experts" or simply "pastafarians."

    thank you kind sir, if I could mod I would give you one for insight. i had no idea there was a PC term for the slang and possibly offensive terminology once known as "pirate".

    i'm not quite sure how you got to "pastafarians" though. that makes me think, stereotypically, of pasta, bowls of herbal nature, then of more eating pasta, and music. a combination that would not seem to be safe during sailing or pillaging. of course that stigmatized assessment is based simply on the recreational experiences of my higher education period along with recent media influences.
  69. Re:As the sunken vessel lies in international wate by saxonhawthorn · · Score: 1

    If this vessel is located just 40 miles from the English coast it is not in international waters. Anything found within 200 nautical miles of the British coastline belongs to the British Crown. All finds within that limit must, by law, be reported to the UK Receiver of Wrecks, who alone decides who gets to keep what. In practice his decision is based upon his estimate of the historical and archaeological significance of the find, though a finder is normally financially compensated for anything the Receiver decides to keep. If a treasure hunter removes artefacts without the permission of the Receiver he is guilty of theft from the British Crown; he can expect to be dealt with according to law, and if he is not a British subject he can expect to face extradition to stand trial. US judges have no jurisdiction to make orders concerning either the territory or the property of the British Crown.

    One would have thought that a company set up to go international treasure hunting would have taken the trouble firstly to acquaint themselves with these elementary legal realities; unless of course they foolishly imagined that they could get away with ignoring them!

  70. Re:As the sunken vessel lies in international wate by Mattcelt · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Mons ter

    That should explain everything.

    I, for one, welcome our new flying spaghetti monster overlord.