• Bell@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    This will mean less treasure hunters finding old wrecks because there’s no financial incentive

    • sylver_dragon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      Or less incentive to talk about their discoveries publicly. I suspect future hunters will just loot the wreck, destroying much of the archeological value and then offload the artifacts on unregulated markets, further degrading any historic benefit.

  • dezmd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Wait a second, why is there a thumbnail of Jacksonville on this random article” was my first thought.

  • Nighed@sffa.community
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I imagine sailing the Caribbean before weather forecasts could be a bit treacherous. How long does it take for a hurricane to pass through?

  • Jaysyn@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Standing in the way of GME is the Sunken Military Craft Act (SMCA), a law signed by then-president George W. Bush in 2004 which recognizes the sovereignty of a country over its former warships.

    Seems like this would remove most of the incentive to look for them.

  • Chickenstalker@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Think carefully about this ruling. This might have huge repercussions on stolen relics held in European museums.

    • Nurgle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Standing in the way of GME is the Sunken Military Craft Act (SMCA), a law signed by then-president George W. Bush in 2004 which recognizes the sovereignty of a country over its former warships.

  • Phanatik@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I get it, treasure hunters want to be compensated for finding wrecks but understand that if you do find one, that does not make you its owner. If it belonged to France when it sank, the wreck still belongs to France. “Finders keepers” is not a game you want to play with archaeologists.

    • dezmd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Is France still the same government entity that it was in the 1600s?

      • wjrii@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not sure if you’re genuinely interested, but for purposes of international law, yes. The idea of “France” is actually a series of successor states who retain certain rights and obligations, including ownership of military assets.

      • Phanatik@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t see how that’s relevant. France as a sovereign nation still exists regardless of what form the government takes. The ship belongs to France, not the government of France.

        • wjrii@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          For me, it involves as taking control of the ship in the midst of an attack by medically-altered sociopathic scientists obsessed with ancient alien technology.

        • dan1101@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          A ship that has been on the bottom of the ocean for 450 years. France had plenty of time to claim it.

          • Phanatik@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            They are claiming it. It was found in 2016 and since has been in a legal battle for ownership between those who found it and the country it belonged to when it sank. Just because you find a wreck doesn’t entitle you to pilfer it for treasure. Stuff like that belongs in a museum not some private collection.

              • Phanatik@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Leaving a sofa on your driveway is hardly the same as a 450 year old shipwreck. You can’t claim a historical artefact just because you found it.

                • wolfpack86@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Wait 450 years and suddenly the sofa becomes an artifact with ownership as well?

                  If there is historical significance and there is a wish to preserve the item for the public and not let the finder keep the item, the finder should be compensated in cash at fair market value. This is actually done when people find things like viking coins, etc. It’s much more reasonable of an approach.

                  Furthermore was Spain actively looking for it??

  • sartalon@futurology.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    “I think it is quite appropriate to say that this is the single most historically important shipwreck in North America,”

    Lol, that lawyer is a full of himself. Maybe if he added, "for French history.

    Did James Cameron make a movie about your boat? No? Ok then sit down. 🤣