Monday, November 12, 2007
More Lunar (Mis)Deeds
From Arkansas comes a story about another company claiming to own the Moon. (Here.) Not content to just own the Moon, Space Pioneers is in the business of selling parcels of lunar land at $28 per acre.
The company's claim to own the Moon is, of course, utter legal nonsense, regardless of what its ownership may believe. (Read the entertaining legal babble at the company website here. Their "claim is for all of mankind which includes the planets in the Milky Way Galaxy; with an amendment to specify the inclusion of the moons.")
In the real world, consumers are either being fooled by Space Pioneers out of $28 for a worthless piece of paper or they are willing buyers of a novelty gift. Maybe what the company is doing counts as fraud and maybe it doesn't. It doesn't matter in the United States because law enforcement officials don't seem to be interested in pursuing companies selling worthless deeds to land in outer space. China had the right idea when it gave Lunar Embassy the boot and shut down the company's nascent operations there in 2005, a decision upheld by a Chinese court in a victory for the rule of law just this year. (Here.) But the real harm from schemes like this one isn't to the pocketbooks of individual consumers it's what the publicity does to the vision or real private space development.
Humanity has a future in space. One day we will live up there and use the resources of space to better our lives there and down here on Earth, and to make money. When that day comes legal issues involving ownership of land or minerals will have to be resolved. I can assure you of one thing. When some legitimate company finally has the wherewithal to put a mining operation on the Moon and lays claim to the minerals it is extracting, some $28 per acre owner of a deed from Space Pioneers won't be able to stop them and won't see a dime in rents or profits no matter how many cease and desist letters the owner writes and how many lawsuits get filed.
The current legal regime governing space will change when the vision of humans making space our home becomes a reality. Schemes like those of Space Pioneers and Lunar Embassy make a mockery of that vision. The sooner these kind of operations are shut down the better.
-tdr
The company's claim to own the Moon is, of course, utter legal nonsense, regardless of what its ownership may believe. (Read the entertaining legal babble at the company website here. Their "claim is for all of mankind which includes the planets in the Milky Way Galaxy; with an amendment to specify the inclusion of the moons.")
In the real world, consumers are either being fooled by Space Pioneers out of $28 for a worthless piece of paper or they are willing buyers of a novelty gift. Maybe what the company is doing counts as fraud and maybe it doesn't. It doesn't matter in the United States because law enforcement officials don't seem to be interested in pursuing companies selling worthless deeds to land in outer space. China had the right idea when it gave Lunar Embassy the boot and shut down the company's nascent operations there in 2005, a decision upheld by a Chinese court in a victory for the rule of law just this year. (Here.) But the real harm from schemes like this one isn't to the pocketbooks of individual consumers it's what the publicity does to the vision or real private space development.
Humanity has a future in space. One day we will live up there and use the resources of space to better our lives there and down here on Earth, and to make money. When that day comes legal issues involving ownership of land or minerals will have to be resolved. I can assure you of one thing. When some legitimate company finally has the wherewithal to put a mining operation on the Moon and lays claim to the minerals it is extracting, some $28 per acre owner of a deed from Space Pioneers won't be able to stop them and won't see a dime in rents or profits no matter how many cease and desist letters the owner writes and how many lawsuits get filed.
The current legal regime governing space will change when the vision of humans making space our home becomes a reality. Schemes like those of Space Pioneers and Lunar Embassy make a mockery of that vision. The sooner these kind of operations are shut down the better.
-tdr
Labels: Law, Lawyers In Space, Space Captains Of Industry
Monday, March 19, 2007
Good News From China: Lunar Embassy Loses Again.
The Lunar Embassy is an embarrassing joke of a company that purports to sell deeds for land on the Moon and other planets. It operates freely in the United States because a country that popularized the pet rock is not going to worry too much about a company selling phony deeds to property on the Moon.
China has turned out to be a bit less laissez faire. When the Lunar Embassy tried to sell its phony deeds to Chinese consumers, the government shut down the company's operations almost immediately. The Lunar Embassy sued, and then after losing, the company appealed to an intermediate appellate court. "On Friday, the Beijing intermediate court rejected its appeal, saying no individual or country could claim ownership of the moon." (Here.)
The Chinese court's decision on the merits is not the most interesting part of this story. Under current international law, people can't claim ownership of the moon. One day that may change but the Lunar Embassy's novelty act won't be leading the way. If anything, by perpetuating the idea that owning property in space is a novelty gift or a joke, the Lunar Embassy is an impediment to changing the law.
The most interesting aspects of the Lunar Embassy in China saga are how quickly the Chinese government moved to protect its consumers and how the legal proceedings in China mirror our own. There is rule of law in China.
-tdr
Technorati:
China, 
Space, 
Moon.
China has turned out to be a bit less laissez faire. When the Lunar Embassy tried to sell its phony deeds to Chinese consumers, the government shut down the company's operations almost immediately. The Lunar Embassy sued, and then after losing, the company appealed to an intermediate appellate court. "On Friday, the Beijing intermediate court rejected its appeal, saying no individual or country could claim ownership of the moon." (Here.)
The Chinese court's decision on the merits is not the most interesting part of this story. Under current international law, people can't claim ownership of the moon. One day that may change but the Lunar Embassy's novelty act won't be leading the way. If anything, by perpetuating the idea that owning property in space is a novelty gift or a joke, the Lunar Embassy is an impediment to changing the law.
The most interesting aspects of the Lunar Embassy in China saga are how quickly the Chinese government moved to protect its consumers and how the legal proceedings in China mirror our own. There is rule of law in China.
-tdr
Technorati:
China, Space, Moon.Labels: China, Law, Lawyers In Space, Luna
Saturday, November 25, 2006
Giant Space Billboards Are Bad For Everybody Not Just Astronomers.
The Bad Astronomer (here) makes a good point about how foolish it was to drive a golf ball from the International Space Station. There's a lot of space debris in orbit already without adding a hurtling golf ball into the mix. Even if it is for only a couple of days.
The possibility of stupid commercial activity in space prompts him to say this in the same post:
To some degree we are all exposed to advertising we'd rather avoid. We voluntarily expose ourselves to most of that advertising by reading newspapers and magazines and using TV, radio, and the internet. Billboards differ from media advertising because we are exposed to billboards just by walking or driving around in public.
Space billboards would be so much more intrusive than ordinary billboards. Here on Earth a billboard may be visible for a block or two or maybe for several miles on the highway. Space billboards, on the other hand, would be visible over vast reaches of Earth to millions of people at the same time. That difference in degree is a significant intrusion on people's ordinary lives and justifies legislation against space billboards, even for merely aesthetic reasons.
There may be environmental reasons to ban space billboards as well. Depending on their brightness, the proliferation of space billboards could light up the night in ways that ruin the environment for nocturnal animals. It's true that cities pollute the sky with their light at night but there are weighty considerations of safety and necessity to justify the amount of light created by cities despite the environmental impact. Because orbital billboards would fly over cities and the dark countryside their impact on the environment would be widespread. Moreover, the potential benefits from space advertising likely would not justify the negative impacts on the environment and the night sky.
Space advertisers may have free speech rights on their side, but even free speech can be regulated by reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. The negative so far outweighs the positive that it seems entirely reasonable to ban obtrusive space billboards visible on Earth.
For a more in depth analysis of legal issues surrounding regulation of space billboards read this Note (here) in The Federal Communications Law Journal and this online article (here) by Jimm Erickson at the website of law professor David D. Friedman. According to the Erickson article Congress has already acted to prevent obtrusive space advertising from ruining the night sky. A US launch license can be denied to any spaceflight sending "obtrusive advertising" into space.
-tdr
Technorati: Astronomy, Science, Environment, NASA, Space.
The possibility of stupid commercial activity in space prompts him to say this in the same post:
"Anyway, I fear this will not be the last of the dumb things done to make money in space. I’m not sure how much to worry about space banners, for example, which will be big lit-up banners in orbit hawking commercial products; this has been proposed realistically and could do serious damage to ground-based astronomy. The list goes on and on. I’m not a big fan of regulating what goes on in space, but if garbage like this golf shot keeps up, I may change my mind."Actually, giant billboards in space would ruin the night sky for all of us, not just ground-based astronomers. The aesthetics of the night sky would be ruined and people all over the world would be a captive audience whose only option to avoid the advertising would be to look at the ground not the sky. Who wants that?
To some degree we are all exposed to advertising we'd rather avoid. We voluntarily expose ourselves to most of that advertising by reading newspapers and magazines and using TV, radio, and the internet. Billboards differ from media advertising because we are exposed to billboards just by walking or driving around in public.
Space billboards would be so much more intrusive than ordinary billboards. Here on Earth a billboard may be visible for a block or two or maybe for several miles on the highway. Space billboards, on the other hand, would be visible over vast reaches of Earth to millions of people at the same time. That difference in degree is a significant intrusion on people's ordinary lives and justifies legislation against space billboards, even for merely aesthetic reasons.
There may be environmental reasons to ban space billboards as well. Depending on their brightness, the proliferation of space billboards could light up the night in ways that ruin the environment for nocturnal animals. It's true that cities pollute the sky with their light at night but there are weighty considerations of safety and necessity to justify the amount of light created by cities despite the environmental impact. Because orbital billboards would fly over cities and the dark countryside their impact on the environment would be widespread. Moreover, the potential benefits from space advertising likely would not justify the negative impacts on the environment and the night sky.
Space advertisers may have free speech rights on their side, but even free speech can be regulated by reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. The negative so far outweighs the positive that it seems entirely reasonable to ban obtrusive space billboards visible on Earth.
For a more in depth analysis of legal issues surrounding regulation of space billboards read this Note (here) in The Federal Communications Law Journal and this online article (here) by Jimm Erickson at the website of law professor David D. Friedman. According to the Erickson article Congress has already acted to prevent obtrusive space advertising from ruining the night sky. A US launch license can be denied to any spaceflight sending "obtrusive advertising" into space.
-tdr
Technorati: Astronomy, Science, Environment, NASA, Space.
Labels: Aesthetics, Lawyers In Space, Leviathan, Scienceism
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Outer Space: The Province Of All Mankind
Michael Huang writes an article in The Space Review this week arguing for a pre-emptive legal strike on behalf of humans in space. (Here.) His concern is that a creeping environmentalism in space will seek to preserve planets in their current state and limit humans to this planet. He advocates an express declaration of rights for humans in space.
Out of 17 articles one sentence in one article deals with the environmental impacts of humanity's presence in space, and that sentence does not bar human use or exploration of space. Instead, the sentence merely states that "harmful contamination" of "the moon and other celestial bodies" is to be "avoided." By modifying "contamination" with "harmful" the treaty appears to recognize that any human activity in space could constitute contamination but that contamination is acceptable so long as it is harmless or beneficial.
Environmentalists who would seek to bottle up humanity on Earth and remove all traces of human presence in space have no support in international law and humans who seek to explore and use space have every right to do so. Just don't ruin the planets for everybody else.
-tdr
Technorati: Space, Space Travel, NASA, Environment, Environmentalism.
"Rights are most effective when they are enshrined in law. It may prove necessary to protect the rights of humans in space in this way. A modest statement, something like, “All human beings have the right to exist at any place beyond Earth,” would help defend against attempts to ban humans from Mars and other places. A more comprehensive statement would be, “Human beings beyond Earth have the same rights as human beings on Earth.” All the hard-won rights that humans have achieved on Earth—including, of course, the right to exist—would apply to people in space.The principal treaty governing human activities in space already seeks to balance the interests of humans and the environment in space and comes down heavily on the side of humans. (Here.) The first two paragraphs of Article I in the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 establish the right of human beings to explore and use space:
The rights of humans on Earth are self-evident, but unfortunately the same cannot be said of the rights of humans in space. In a world with an ongoing attempt to reduce and eventually eliminate human existence beyond Earth, a strong declaration of human rights would be very useful."
"The exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind.The balance comes later with one sentence in Article IX:
Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law, and there shall be free access to all areas of celestial bodies."
"States Parties to the Treaty shall pursue studies of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful contamination and also adverse changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter and, where necessary, shall adopt appropriate measures for this purpose."The treaty assumes that humans will explore and use space. Indeed, the treaty's first article establishes as a principle of international law that the exploration and use of outer space is "the province of all mankind." The subsequent articles of the treaty set out the limitations on humanity's use and exploration of outer space.
Out of 17 articles one sentence in one article deals with the environmental impacts of humanity's presence in space, and that sentence does not bar human use or exploration of space. Instead, the sentence merely states that "harmful contamination" of "the moon and other celestial bodies" is to be "avoided." By modifying "contamination" with "harmful" the treaty appears to recognize that any human activity in space could constitute contamination but that contamination is acceptable so long as it is harmless or beneficial.
Environmentalists who would seek to bottle up humanity on Earth and remove all traces of human presence in space have no support in international law and humans who seek to explore and use space have every right to do so. Just don't ruin the planets for everybody else.
-tdr
Technorati: Space, Space Travel, NASA, Environment, Environmentalism.
Labels: Lawyers In Space
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Space Property RIghts.
This article (here) is a very good discussion on the issues regarding private property rights in space. It's remarkably well-informed on the issue, which is evident by the article's discussion of sea-bed mining as a model for future space exploitation and property rights in space.
The article is a bit too charitable to the Lunar Embassy's bogus sales of Lunar real estate. The Lunar Embassy's land sales may demonstrate there is a market for owning property in space. On the negative side the so-called land sales make the idea of private property in space seem like a joke in media reporting and, frankly, the sales are a scam.
Also, judging by the comments of Planetary Society's President Lou Freedman, he's not exactly an advocate of space commercialization. That could explain why he thinks the Planetary SOciety's so-called Save Our Science campaign to have NASA continue doing the Same Old Stuff in space is such a great idea.
-tdr
Technorati: NASA, Space.
The article is a bit too charitable to the Lunar Embassy's bogus sales of Lunar real estate. The Lunar Embassy's land sales may demonstrate there is a market for owning property in space. On the negative side the so-called land sales make the idea of private property in space seem like a joke in media reporting and, frankly, the sales are a scam.
Also, judging by the comments of Planetary Society's President Lou Freedman, he's not exactly an advocate of space commercialization. That could explain why he thinks the Planetary SOciety's so-called Save Our Science campaign to have NASA continue doing the Same Old Stuff in space is such a great idea.
-tdr
Technorati: NASA, Space.
Labels: Lawyers In Space
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Lawyers, Government, And Laws, O My! Impressions of ISDC 2006.
We don't like you. We really, really don't like you.
The message comes through loud and clear at space conferences that people who really, really want to go to space, really, really dislike the government. And NASA? Don't even go there! Space entrepreneurs seem to hate that government got to space first. They think government is doing space all wrong. And they claim they could do the job so much better, if only government would get out of the way.
The anti-government attitude showed itself at Space Ship One's X-Prize flights two years ago when somebody made a sign that read, "Space Ship One, Government Zero." We won't dwell on it for too long, but "one to zero" is not the correct score. Here's an estimate of the real score of government flights of humans into space (100 km) versus private sector flights:
NASA, about 147 --- including two X-15 flights, Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, and Shuttle;
Private sector, 3.
Not to overly praise government, however. Its recent track record is not so good and space entrepreneurs are moving forward with their private space programs.
Despite all their disdain of government, space entrepreneurs still seem to want the government's money. "Give us the money and we'll give you the rockets, just keep your pesky rules and regulations to yourself," is their message to government. It's no wonder they love the idea of government funded prizes.
ITAR
Berin Szoka is a very smart young lawyer. He runs the Institute for Space Law and Policy. (Here.) He gave the best talk on a strategy for reforming ITAR one could ever hear. It boils down to Mr. Clinton's old campaign slogan about affirmative action or welfare, whichever it was, "mend it, don't end it." Szoka's slogan is a better one, "An ITAR that works for America." It's probably more sincere, as well. In either event, his bottom line is that spacers need to stop trying to kill ITAR and start thinking of ways to convince the powers that be in Congress to fix it for the good of America.
Go to any space conference and you'll hear constant complaints about ITAR and how it makes it so hard for American space entrepreneurs to do business. The horror stories are compelling but after a while the constant complaints become a very off-putting whine. The question then comes to mind, even to a supporter of space entrepreneurship: "Don't these people care about America's national security?" Szoka's strategy for reform aims to nip that impression in the bud.
Who ya gonna call?
At the ISDC Szoka ran the legal track of discussions. The legal track included great topics that were unfortunately sparsely attended. The talk by adventure sports lawyer Tracey Knutson should be required listening for anybody who hopes to launch people into space and avoid liability when something eventually goes wrong. (Here.) But few attended.
There's probably a reason for the sparse attendance. One, there are the really cool view graphs of spaceships and hardware at the other talks. At the legal talks, what viewgraphs there are typically have words, lots and lots of words. And not just regular English words or even whizbang rocketry words. No, we're talking legalese. Who wants that?
The more likely reason is that many spacers don't like government, but arguably they dislike lawyers even more. Maybe if they ignore them, the lawyers and government will just go away. In fact, Pete Worden got some appreciative laughs with a few lawyer jokes during his luncheon talk on Sunday. One joke suggested that even one lawyer in space was too many.
Yet during his talk Worden said an important requirement for opening the Moon to economic development is the right to own private property on the moon. He acknowledged not being a lawyer but said his understanding was that the Outer Space Treaty didn't bar private property ownership on the Moon.
If Worden or the audience had attended Szoka's comprehensive and insightful talk on private property rights in space under the OST, he and his audience might have learned that owning real property on the Moon is not going to be as easy as he and they think. However, mining its resources, possessing enough territory to mine those resources, and selling the resources are all legally possible even under the OST.
So let the lawyer jokes continue. Lawyer jokes are the price lawyers pay to run the world. Just remember, if you're not satisfied with one world, do you think lawyers are? And who do you think you're going to have to call when you're finally ready to stake a legal claim to a platinum group metal asteroid or helium 3 on the Moon?
-tdr
Technorati: Space, NASA.
The message comes through loud and clear at space conferences that people who really, really want to go to space, really, really dislike the government. And NASA? Don't even go there! Space entrepreneurs seem to hate that government got to space first. They think government is doing space all wrong. And they claim they could do the job so much better, if only government would get out of the way.
The anti-government attitude showed itself at Space Ship One's X-Prize flights two years ago when somebody made a sign that read, "Space Ship One, Government Zero." We won't dwell on it for too long, but "one to zero" is not the correct score. Here's an estimate of the real score of government flights of humans into space (100 km) versus private sector flights:
NASA, about 147 --- including two X-15 flights, Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, and Shuttle;
Private sector, 3.
Not to overly praise government, however. Its recent track record is not so good and space entrepreneurs are moving forward with their private space programs.
Despite all their disdain of government, space entrepreneurs still seem to want the government's money. "Give us the money and we'll give you the rockets, just keep your pesky rules and regulations to yourself," is their message to government. It's no wonder they love the idea of government funded prizes.
ITAR
Berin Szoka is a very smart young lawyer. He runs the Institute for Space Law and Policy. (Here.) He gave the best talk on a strategy for reforming ITAR one could ever hear. It boils down to Mr. Clinton's old campaign slogan about affirmative action or welfare, whichever it was, "mend it, don't end it." Szoka's slogan is a better one, "An ITAR that works for America." It's probably more sincere, as well. In either event, his bottom line is that spacers need to stop trying to kill ITAR and start thinking of ways to convince the powers that be in Congress to fix it for the good of America.
Go to any space conference and you'll hear constant complaints about ITAR and how it makes it so hard for American space entrepreneurs to do business. The horror stories are compelling but after a while the constant complaints become a very off-putting whine. The question then comes to mind, even to a supporter of space entrepreneurship: "Don't these people care about America's national security?" Szoka's strategy for reform aims to nip that impression in the bud.
Who ya gonna call?
At the ISDC Szoka ran the legal track of discussions. The legal track included great topics that were unfortunately sparsely attended. The talk by adventure sports lawyer Tracey Knutson should be required listening for anybody who hopes to launch people into space and avoid liability when something eventually goes wrong. (Here.) But few attended.
There's probably a reason for the sparse attendance. One, there are the really cool view graphs of spaceships and hardware at the other talks. At the legal talks, what viewgraphs there are typically have words, lots and lots of words. And not just regular English words or even whizbang rocketry words. No, we're talking legalese. Who wants that?
The more likely reason is that many spacers don't like government, but arguably they dislike lawyers even more. Maybe if they ignore them, the lawyers and government will just go away. In fact, Pete Worden got some appreciative laughs with a few lawyer jokes during his luncheon talk on Sunday. One joke suggested that even one lawyer in space was too many.
Yet during his talk Worden said an important requirement for opening the Moon to economic development is the right to own private property on the moon. He acknowledged not being a lawyer but said his understanding was that the Outer Space Treaty didn't bar private property ownership on the Moon.
If Worden or the audience had attended Szoka's comprehensive and insightful talk on private property rights in space under the OST, he and his audience might have learned that owning real property on the Moon is not going to be as easy as he and they think. However, mining its resources, possessing enough territory to mine those resources, and selling the resources are all legally possible even under the OST.
So let the lawyer jokes continue. Lawyer jokes are the price lawyers pay to run the world. Just remember, if you're not satisfied with one world, do you think lawyers are? And who do you think you're going to have to call when you're finally ready to stake a legal claim to a platinum group metal asteroid or helium 3 on the Moon?
-tdr
Technorati: Space, NASA.
Labels: ISDC 2006, Lawyers In Space
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Three Cheers For China's Shutdown Of Lunar Embassy.
China has done the right thing and shut down the so-called Lunar Embassy's company in China. (Story here.) The Lunar Embassy purports to sell property on the moon and other planets under a specious legal theory that it owns the other planets. They don't. No jurisdiction in the United States has yet shut down the Lunar Embassy's activities here. Too bad. As we've written before the Lunar Embassy's bogus claims turn the notion of private property rights in space into a joke and discredit those who seriously advocate opening space to private enterprise. The sooner some enterprising prosecutor in the United States looks into the Lunar Embassy the better.
-tdr
-tdr
Labels: China, Law, Lawyers In Space, Space Captains Of Industry
Friday, October 28, 2005
China Investigates Moon Property Sales Scheme.
As much as we at Tales of the Heliosphere dislike the current regime in China, we've got to give it credit for opening an investigation into the legitimacy of the extraterrestrial land sale schemes of the Lunar Embassy. (See story here.) The so-called Lunar Embassy opened for business this month in China.
The company purports to sell certificates for ownership of land on the moon. The company's website (here) spouts doubletalk about what a purchase really gets the customer. On the one hand the company claims the land claim is legitimate and backs up that claim with some pretty creative and far-fetched legal mumbo jumbo. On the other hand the company claims to sell "novel" items. Note the careful use of the word "novel" as opposed to "novelty." Here's an example of the doubletalk from their website's FAQ page:
The legal bottom line on this company is that the land claims are worthless. They might be cute gifts for space enthusiasts but they do not give the purchaser a legal claim to any property on the moon.
As long as the company was selling these fake deeds for about twenty bucks a pop the harm to the customer was minimal. We believe there is great harm to the cause of property rights in space because it makes the issue seem like a joke or a fraud. But that's a different issue.
Now, however, the company is offering membership in their so-called Century Club for $1,000. That's right, $1,000. And what comes with membership? About 2,000 acres of land on any planet where the company claims to be selling property and the chance to win a trip to Las Vegas and the company president's used sports car. We kid you not. (See site here.)
We're glad that China is investigating this scheme. We believe a jurisdiction in the United States should do the same.
-tdr
The company purports to sell certificates for ownership of land on the moon. The company's website (here) spouts doubletalk about what a purchase really gets the customer. On the one hand the company claims the land claim is legitimate and backs up that claim with some pretty creative and far-fetched legal mumbo jumbo. On the other hand the company claims to sell "novel" items. Note the careful use of the word "novel" as opposed to "novelty." Here's an example of the doubletalk from their website's FAQ page:
"If this is for real, why is it a novel gift?Any potential customer should be hearing loud warning bells after reading that disclaimer.
Answer
We use this statement in two contexts: The first as defined in the American Heritage Dictionary; The quality of being novel: 1) something new and unusual and 2) a small mass-produced article. Well, a property on the Moon definitely falls into all of those categories. The second context is totally out of the Lunar Embassies own, personal paranoia, as our lawyers explained to us 25 years ago when this all started, that this can help avoid any frivolous lawsuits from a foreign country. You should know that this does not diminish the value of the property that you purchase in any way, as every deed is recorded and registered in the Lunar Embassy's registration database and every owners information is listed with that registration. You own this property."
The legal bottom line on this company is that the land claims are worthless. They might be cute gifts for space enthusiasts but they do not give the purchaser a legal claim to any property on the moon.
As long as the company was selling these fake deeds for about twenty bucks a pop the harm to the customer was minimal. We believe there is great harm to the cause of property rights in space because it makes the issue seem like a joke or a fraud. But that's a different issue.
Now, however, the company is offering membership in their so-called Century Club for $1,000. That's right, $1,000. And what comes with membership? About 2,000 acres of land on any planet where the company claims to be selling property and the chance to win a trip to Las Vegas and the company president's used sports car. We kid you not. (See site here.)
We're glad that China is investigating this scheme. We believe a jurisdiction in the United States should do the same.
-tdr
Labels: China, Law, Lawyers In Space, Space Captains Of Industry
Saturday, October 22, 2005
One Billion New Suckers?
The Lunar Embassy, which purports to sell property on the moon, is setting up shop in China. (See the story here.) Ownership of private property in space is a serious issue. The law needs to be changed to recognize private property rights in space. At best the Lunar Embassy makes this issue a joke and turns serious people who advocate private ownership in space into laughingstocks. At worst people are being duped into believing they own something they don't. Something should be done to crack down on this business. China may be just the country to do it. (See story here.) Not that we're making a recommendation.
-tdr
-tdr
Labels: China, Law, Lawyers In Space, Space Captains Of Industry
