PDA

View Full Version : Name that Country: An Island Without Copyright



tofu
2006-Jan-04, 02:36 PM
Hey, does anybody remember the name of that little island in the Atlantic that set itself up as an independant country back in the late '90s. They were going to be a place were there were no copyright laws, so basically, piracy would have been rampant.

The name was something like sea-somethingorother.

I read about it on slashdot years ago.

Lianachan
2006-Jan-04, 02:44 PM
Hey, does anybody remember the name of that little island in the Atlantic that set itself up as an independant country back in the late '90s. They were going to be a place were there were no copyright laws, so basically, piracy would have been rampant.

The name was something like sea-somethingorother.

I read about it on slashdot years ago.
I doubt we're thinking about the same thing, but the copyright situation in Bermuda was pretty loose until the passing of The Copyright (Bermuda) Order in 2003.

snarkophilus
2006-Jan-04, 02:54 PM
Hey, does anybody remember the name of that little island in the Atlantic that set itself up as an independant country back in the late '90s. They were going to be a place were there were no copyright laws, so basically, piracy would have been rampant.

The name was something like sea-somethingorother.

I read about it on slashdot years ago.

I think you're thinking of Sealand, but they've been around since the 1960s, not the late 90s.

http://www.sealandgov.com/

ToSeek
2006-Jan-04, 02:54 PM
Sealand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealand)?

If it's not that one, look at the others described here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micronation)

Moose
2006-Jan-04, 02:57 PM
It's called Sealand. It's technically within the UK's claimed territorial waters, but the King of Sealand has been contesting his territorial claims for a while. Sealand is a decommissioned oil platform that was intentionally scuttled on a sandbar to create an artificial island. And yes, it's supposed to be a monarchy, but no country in the world currently recognizes it as a legitimate country. Sealand actually suffered a coup attempt a while back.

Wikipedia has an article on Sealand's history.

tofu
2006-Jan-04, 03:05 PM
yep! It's Sealand! Thanks guys, you're better than google.

TriangleMan
2006-Jan-04, 03:45 PM
I doubt we're thinking about the same thing, but the copyright situation in Bermuda was pretty loose until the passing of The Copyright (Bermuda) Order in 2003.
That order updated laws regarding database and music protection. I remember news articles here focused on how with the new legislation people would no longer be able to sell CD mixes in local stores (unless they had permission of the artists of course). It wasn't exactly a million dollar business but up until then people here could do it.

A while ago, although I believe it has changed now, US copyrights and trademarks were not recognized in the Cayman Islands. Someone I know there once told me that you could've opened a restaurant and called it McDonalds if you wanted to. I doubt that is the case today though.

NEOWatcher
2006-Jan-04, 03:51 PM
snip
Wikipedia has an article on Sealand's history.
Hummmm... a Sandbar? So instead of Sealand Dollor, just call it a Sand Dollar. :whistle:

HenrikOlsen
2006-Jan-05, 10:38 PM
Sounds a bit like Elleore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elleore), another island monarch technically within the borders of another.

Nicolas
2006-Jan-05, 10:46 PM
What is it with Sea Land and the UK's territorial waters? It is outside the 3 NM region, but there seems to be a problem?

Moose
2006-Jan-05, 10:48 PM
What is it with Sea Land and the UK's territorial waters? It is outside the 3 NM region, but there seems to be a problem?

SeaLand and the UK are both claiming 12NM.

Nicolas
2006-Jan-05, 10:53 PM
But when Sea Land was placed, the UK claimed only 3 NM around the UK, so Sea Land was in international waters?

Moose
2006-Jan-05, 11:15 PM
But when Sea Land was placed, the UK claimed only 3 NM around the UK, so Sea Land was in international waters?

It would so seem.


Since the 1968 UK court decision, the United Kingdom has extended its territorial sea to twelve nautical miles (22 km), which it had the legal right to do under international law since 1958. These and subsequent laws have dealt with the construction and legal position of artificial islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_island). However, as Roughs Tower is actually a sunken ship, some have claimed it is not covered by these rulings. Sealand declared that it, too, was extending its claim of territorial waters to twelve nautical miles at a similar time to the UK.

Nicolas
2006-Jan-05, 11:20 PM
Roughs Tower was in international waters when it was "declared" independent as Sealand. OK.

Say that's accepted. Then indeed The UK's extension of territorial waters can never have as result that an independent nation ceases to exist I assume.

On the other hand, it is "a sunken ship". Can it be claimed as a nation? In other words, does a sunken ship count as territory? Does any purely artificial structure count as territory (I guess this last thing does).

If It's a sunken ship, they should lift it and tow it to somewhere else. Say, somewhere a bit more polar :).

Lance
2006-Jan-06, 04:51 PM
Does any purely artificial structure count as territory (I guess this last thing does).
Aren't naval vessels considered sovereign territory of the country they belong to?

snarkophilus
2006-Jan-06, 10:18 PM
Aren't naval vessels considered sovereign territory of the country they belong to?

It's not a vessel. Also, the UK abandoned it, which by the law of the sea means it was up for grabs. Finally, that only applies to military vehicles, and once the platform was decommissioned, even if it was a ship, it would be in the same class as any other wreckage (just like the Titanic, for instance... I think there's a thread about that kicking around somewhere).

Lance
2006-Jan-07, 04:45 PM
It's not a vessel. Also, the UK abandoned it, which by the law of the sea means it was up for grabs. Finally, that only applies to military vehicles, and once the platform was decommissioned, even if it was a ship, it would be in the same class as any other wreckage (just like the Titanic, for instance... I think there's a thread about that kicking around somewhere).
Understood, but the question I was responding to was:

Does any purely artificial structure count as territory (I guess this last thing does).

Can an artificial structure be considered territory?

I vote "yes", and gave an example.

I believe we are in agreement here.

jkmccrann
2006-Jan-08, 01:01 PM
And how about embassies, are they not also considered sovereign territory of the country they represent?

mickal555
2006-Jan-08, 01:07 PM
there's a whole entry just for australia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micronation#Micronations_in_Australia

:doh::think: :wall:

Blob
2007-Jan-08, 01:55 AM
For sale: the world’s smallest country, complete with its own passports, currency, stamps and national football team. Uninterrupted sea views and complete privacy assured. Oh, and more wind than you will ever want. Offers in the region of eight-digit sums considered.
After 40 years, the owners of the Principality of Sealand have put it on the market. They hope that investors will be lured by the island’s setting and its status as a tax haven.

Read more (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2536497,00.html)


The Principality of Sealand is a micronation that claims as its territory Roughs Tower as well as territorial waters in a twelve nautical mile radius. Roughs Tower is a former Maunsell Sea Fort located in the North Sea 10 km off the coast of Essex, UK.
HM Fort Roughs was constructed by the UK during World War II in 1942.
It is comprised of a floating pontoon base with a superstructure of two hollow towers joined by a deck . The location chosen was in international waters, outside the then three-mile territorial water claim of the UK.

Read more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealand)

Latitude: 51.90790N, Longitude: 1.45230E

The Supreme Canuck
2007-Jan-08, 03:36 AM
Roughs Tower was in international waters when it was "declared" independent as Sealand. OK.

Say that's accepted. Then indeed The UK's extension of territorial waters can never have as result that an independent nation ceases to exist I assume.

Strictly, that's true. But the UK can do what it wants. Sealand can protest if it wants. It can even invade if it wants. But since the entire population of the place consists of a single family, it won't do much good. Besides, a nation really isn't a nation until it's recognized by other nations. Look at Taiwan now, or Canada before Westminster.

International politics is a rough game.