Commercial free speech is highly regulated and much more limited than political free speech. I see nothing wrong with making them cease their misleading advertising and clearly say in any future advertising what it is you are getting in a way that is not misleading.
Actually, that line *has]/i] been drawn. It is illegal and criminal to make claims that something akin to snake oil can cure anything. Many people are still gullible enough to buy such products, but to the extent possible the law protects them against unscrupulous people.
Star naming doesn’t actually hurt anyone, unless you count the irritation of astronimers who are asked by people to “show me my star.”
Lest my, err, tone obscure what I was aiming for: why should this be outlawed? They’re not doing anything illegal, it’s not really harmful (yeah, it costs money, but nobody’s selling their house to buy a star), and while it IS misleading in a way, they’re not really lying either. As I was trying to say, if you accept the notion that you can name a star in the first place, I don’t see why there’s anything faulty about the way they do it.
There is an international body that names stars…the International Astronmical Union.
You get all sorts of names and I am under the impression that if you are the first to discover a stellar object you get to name it. The site I linked to below mentions that the star Vega actually has over 40 different names (I suppose before the telephone and internet many different ancient people named it). Besides your name the object usually gets a ‘catalog name’ (e.g HR-2326). Of course, if we ever fly out there and find inhabitants who call it Qzyrujjdtye then I guess we’d have to go with that.
Here’s a site that explains all the possibilities: http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/starname.html
Yes, I’m aware. But who gave THEM the ability to do so? 
I’m being goofy about it, but we’re regarding the IAU as officially naming the star, and the ISR as unofficial or “not real.” It’s arbitrary in its own way - what makes the difference?
Now, I’m not being a dope and saying that scientific research isn’t worth something. I’m saying that as far as naming stars go, we kind of made up our own rules, so saying that somebody is cheating doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Source: http://www.starregistry.com/
Seems to me the fine print disclaimer works for them.
Well…you call yourself Marley23 but its really pretty arbitrary…I’ve unilaterally decided you are 23Marley ;).
Granted ANY naming scheme is arbitrary…ultimately it is just a particular sound we apply to something. However, we all get on better if we have agreed upon sounds for a given object. If you told our resident Bad Astronomer that star Marley23 (that you bought from the ISR) is a Neutron Star he wouldn’t have a clue about what star you are talking about. If you said star HR-2326 he would know where to find out about it.
I know you’re just goofing around a bit here but I think one can say that while the IAU and ISR are in some respect arbitrary the IAU is ‘less’ arbitrary by virtue of wider acceptance among people who study stars for a living.
The practical answer is, of course, that astronomers pay attention to the IAU rather than the ISR.
However, the IAU is also slightly more than a private organisation. In particular, its status is recognised by different countries via their adhering organisations (listed here). For example, in the cases of the US and France, it’s the National Research Council and the Academy of Sciences respectively. Both of these in turn are run by the governments. It’d be untrue to suggest that these governments have therefore explicitly devolved any right to officially name stars to the IAU, but its work is thus endorsed by most countries.
The IAU’s own page on the issue of “star registries” is here.
Huh. The Master hath spoke. And apparently the International Star Registry registers inkspots as well as celestial objects.
Sounds like they’ve covered themselves pretty neatly, not promising more than they’re giving. If you’re going to outlaw what they do, then outlawing evanglists who prey on the ignorance of their audience might be looked at, too. And, unfortunately, in each case the underlying problem isn’t out-and-out deception by the seller but the blatant ignorance practiced by the buyer.
I’d say as long as there’s a disclaimer, as Duckster pointed out, it is no more deceptive than a lot of other legal things.
Damn- we have been busy naming stars and planets for three years now-
we should have been charging people to name them…
http://www.orionsarm.com/eg/topics/worlds.html
It seems likely that the smaller stars and the more distant ones will only get official names once interstellar missions of one kind or another actually arrive at the system concerned.
Even the named stars often have more than one name in common use-
for instance
Alpha Centauri is also called
Toliman, Rigil Kent or Rigel Kentaurus
while Rigel itself is also known as Algebar or Elgebar.
Confused? you will be.
SF worldbuilding at
http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html
The good thing is, if you happen to discover a heretofore unknown star, you can name it after a loved one, and have the name recognised by the IAU.
Yes and no. While it’s true that commercial speech is subject to greater restrictions than non-commercial speech, the Supreme Court in the last decade or two has greatly expanded First Amendment protections for commercial speech. The mere fact that this stupid star registry thing is commercial in nature certainly does not mean that the government can force them to withdraw or alter their ads without some reasonably compelling reason.
I would agree with you except for one thing: What’s misleading about it?
>> What’s misleading about it?
If the mention of the Patent Office or other wording may lead the average (and not too bright) consumer to believe the naming has some kind of government backing or scientific community recognition, then it is misleading. There have been many cases where companies used vague advertising to make it appear as they were somehow endorsed or recognized by some government agency or the Post Office or something like that and they have been forced by the courts to cease the practice.
I’m selling SDMB threads.
This thread, previously called thread 190618, is now “Jackie Pemberton”, as bought by her husband Joe.
Ms Pemberton’s name joins the thousands of other sucke… owners in my copyrighted register, catalogued and stored under my bed for future generations as a record of Joe’s lack of imag… love for his wife on their 20th anniversary.
All the G8 governments and the UN have been notified of its existance, and no-one complained, so I guess that makes it about as internationally official as anything can be.
Show how much you care, name a ‘fighting ignorance’ thread* after your loved one. On application we will carefully pick a thread from the thousand’s available especially for you. All for the bargain price of $20, includes certificate and instructions how to find it. (BBQ Pit threads on special at $2 each.)
Don’t care about ignorance? Try our 'Name A Water Molecule" scheme. Internationally recognised by scientist as H2O. Literally millions to choose from, each with their own personality.
*All SDMB threads remain copyrighted material of the Chicago Reader, Inc and no-one else knows or cares a toss about our naming scheme.
My God, Bricker, have you given this any real thought? You could make millions by offering a service that named a turd after someone. Imagine the business you’d rake in from disgruntled employees and scorned lovers alone…Although, you’d have to get a photographer who isn’t squeemish to take the pictures you’d sent to people.
It’s a scam scam scam, scam scam scam scam. Their can send their three piece suits after me all they want. I’ll get Harvey Birdman to represent me, and tear them to shreds on the stand. Here’s some more libelous speech: they are dirty, rotten exploiters of other human beings who happen to be too trusting to believe that nasty assholes like the ISR could really exist and actually survive as a viable bussiness. That may be naive, but its a sad sad thing that they’re wrong.
IMHO, this is a classic case of “caveat emptor”. They’re not promising more than they’re giving.
What’s the purpose of their saying, “The name will be registered in book form in the US Copyright office?” Is it not to deceive people into thinking something that isn’t true?