Slashdot Mirror
Lord British Claims He Owns the Moon
An anonymous reader writes "Following the recent discovery of Richard Garriott's old moon rover, the man known as Lord British has laid claim to his own lunar territory. Moon dwellers, all hail your new overlord!"
So if another probe lands in the vicinity, or roves its away across the supposed territory, would Lord British then have grounds to sue for ruining the property values? "Good Lord, man, look at what you've done! All those tracks ruin the pristine scenery!"
As headlines go, this is into the 'warner bros cartoon' surreal territory. What's next? 'Lord British holds earth to ransom from his moon fortress!'
i know not what weapons the next world war will be fought with, but world war IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
Who the fuck wrote that article? The spelling, grammar and flow would suggest it was a retarded foetus.
In other news, a man named 'Rainz' bought the plot next to British on the moon, and wondered if Lord British wanted some bread as a housewarming present.
http://gmtristan.com/the-man-who-killed-lord-british/
Garriott may or may not own a legal title to Lunokhod (it is by no means a given that the auction sale was a legitimate title), but there is no way buying Lunokhod gives him any ownership rights to any piece of the Moon, however small.
From http://www.space.com/news/soviet-moon-rover-space-law-100322.html:
Validity of ownership?
Enter space lawyer, Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz. She is Director of the National Center for Remote Sensing, Air and Space Law and Research Professor of Law at the University of Mississippi.
"The soundness of a property right depends in large part on the integrity of the documents that memorialize the right," Gabrynowicz told SPACE.com via email. "This is why property buyers conduct title searches before buying property. They want to be sure that the title is good."
Gabrynowicz said that without reading the papers or knowing how they were processed and by whom, she can't speak to the validity of the ownership of a space object purchased at auction.
"However, a contention that buying a space object that landed on the lunar surface from a sovereign nation gives rise to a property right to the territory under it is wrong," Gabrynowicz said.
Gabrynowicz said that States-Parties to the Outer Space Treaty of 1966 cannot acquire lunar territory by landing an object on the moon.
"The USSR was and Russia is a party to the Outer Space Treaty," she added. "It did not acquire the territory under the object when it landed. One cannot sell what one does not own. Since USSR/Russia did not have a property right to the territory under the landed object, there was nothing to sell."
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
I guess I could be wrong, but I have a feeling he is kinda joking around when he made the cracks about having people pay to "park in his spot." I find it hard to believe that he is being serious about having real claim to any moon property (other than the landers, themselves). Am I the only one thinking he is just goofing off with such statements?
"Never give up, for that is just the time and place when the tide will change." -Harriet Beecher Stowe ^_^
Here is the proof!
in English and Spanish (more complete)
Don't argue with me about Wikipedia not being the total truth.
Wow. No fact checking. Typical over-the-top-can't-get-the-facts-right journalism. The article tries to paint Lord British as laying claim to the entire moon, in the title, when in reality he's only even trying to claim at least the land on which the rover sits, and at most the land the rover crossed before it laid to rest.
The lawyer who was quoted when asked if he really owned the lander, is, quite frankly, covering her ass, as any good lawyer would do, when asked a question like that. What she says, that she can't determine if he owns it or not without seeing the title, is true. Any good lawyer would say the same thing if you called them to ask if you owned your house. They're not going to assume you do, even if you have been living there for the last 10 years. That would be borderline malpractice.
What Gariott is doing is, in fact, not nearly as crazy as it sounds. Since virtually every spacefaring nation gave up their rights to the moon in the Outer Space Treaty, any claims to the moon by right of discovery that could have been made by the US or Russia (as USSR's successor state) are void under international law. The treaty, however, does not contemplate private ownership of the moon. Gariott actually has a number of very very reasonable legal arguments that he owns a part of the moon. Yes, it does sound very strange to a lay person that he might have a "right of discovery" some land on the moon, since in the lay sense he did obviously not discover the moon. That said, legally, it's not unreasonable to say that he might. Nor is it unreasonable to say that he might gain the land through simply owning the rover on it long enough.
While the auction could not and did not sell him the land, this does not mean he can't own it. If no-one owns the land, then there are a number of legal ways to acquire it, as I've briefly discussed above.
The article, frankly, was clearly written by someone with no understanding of the legal circumstances around the matter.
I believe he was referring to the town in Ultima III, which he really could lay claim to.
Also, couldn't you visit the moon in Ultima II? My memory of that is hazy. I know Ronald McDonald was in it at some point.
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
As a citizen of a nation whom signed that treaty, his government's law is still held over him, and the UK law (by treaty) is that no nation or person can own the moon, it is there for all of mankind.
Maybe possibly he could do so if he has his citizenship canceled (Is that possible in the UK? I know it is in the USA but obviously that doesn't apply here)
However with no citizenship to pretty much any first world nation with space technology, that will leave him out in the cold for trying to claim his property. He also stands a good chance of getting shot down if he did somehow manage to launch from a country that does not have a space program.
(ZOMG, is that an incoming ICMB?! better not take any chances, press the red button!)
he bought his way into space with his ridiculous riches and he expects to be looked up to?
Well, if he's in space, then aren't we all looking up to him?
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
It is possible that someday a group of private (super rich) citizens or a corporation will make some spaceships and fly to the moon, build a lunar base there, and live there. It is possible for them to do it long before a government does it. That would be really interesting because they could reasonably claim the moon as theirs. The response of various countries to this claim would be even more interesting. I'll bet there would be a lot more interest in going to the moon right away to move out those squatters.
Most people around here are taking Garriott's bait and are picking apart the legal ramifications of his rover ownership, but it's much simpler than that. You own something if you can defend it. I.e., you have an army. Treaties are meaningless outside the context of force. Ever wonder why making someone follow a contract is called 'enforcement'?
And, because R.A.H. is taken as Gospel around here: the moon dwellers didn't gain sovereignty until they showed that they could pummel the bejeezus out of Earth. It turns out that it actually works that way in real life.
I think the real history of Sealand is actually a little more ridiculous than uncyclopedia's page. After all, there was a mercenary war.
Ezekiel 23:20