We talk a great deal here at Techdirt about eBooks, their pricing, DRM, and book piracy, but sometimes lost in all of the discussion is the actual starting point for all of these trends, which is that paying any substantial amount of money for a digital product that might later turn out to be disappointing sucks. Many forward-thinking folks have realized this notion and looked at piracy as something of a "try before you buy" vetting system, choosing to embrace piracy as a solution. Specifically for eBooks, another method for combatting this is to have shorter reads that cost less, theoretically diminishing the risk. They're both good and sensible efforts, but they skirt around the main issue rather than tackling it head on. There might now, however, be a new way to offer readers the ability to try out books before buying them completely.

TotalBooX is one company trying out what they're calling a "pay as you go" eBook model. The idea is that you can pay per page rather than buying the entire book upfront. That way, if you find that you don't enjoy the first 50 pages of a book, you mitigate the risk of being out the entire cost of the book by only having bought those first 50 pages.

With TotalBooX, the overall price of the book doesn’t change. But the users have a chance to save some money if they are not satisfied with the product. The platform already contains 10,000 eBooks, and will be available on iOS and online. First-timers are greeted with $2 worth of free pages, but from then on, the balance of the account needs to be topped up in advance.

“We are trying to rid the world from outdated, expensive ritual of buying a book before you read it,” says [founder Yoarv] Lorch. On TotalBooX, sharing an interesting eBook is as easy as drag-and-dropping it into a friend’s account, and there’s no need to enter any login details or payment information. Add social media integration, the platform hopes to appeal to real book lovers.

We'll have to see if this gains any real traction, but it highlights the wonder of what you can do in providing customers more options with a digital product. As Lorch himself notes later, this kind of model was previously impossible because of the physical nature of books and the costs associated with them. With digital content however, offering something like this not only makes sense, but now that I've seen it I have to wonder what the hell took so long. This is exactly what eBooks do best over their dead-tree brethren. Still, it's one thing to build it, it's another to get people interested. In a digital world where so many people expect free samples, charging for those samples may be a turn-off at first, even if it's much, much more than a normal "sample" of the work. Plus, adding on the "mental transaction costs" of whether or not it's worth a penny or three to turn the page may be a burden that many users don't want. Still, giving active readers the chance to pay for exactly as much of a book as they read seems like a workable idea.

As with all things eBooks, however, innovative folks like Lorch need parternships with authors and publishers along with interested customers to really make this work. I'm not sure if traditional publishers will see this type of model as something to embrace or as a threat to their profit lines, but I would imagine self-published authors will embrace this more easily, as they have most other literary innovations. If that indeed proves the case, we likely will be able to add this as another innovation that will push readers away from traditional publishers and towards the self-published author. On the other hand, if literary publishers want to get out front on this, they could help provide readers with an immensely useful service that shows off their authors' talents.

Humans may have made themselves masters of this planet, but there are still places on Earth that have been relatively untouched by people, where many new species of life are waiting to be discovered. Most of these lifeforms are very tiny -- insects, bacteria, and other microorganisms -- and they tend to live in extreme conditions, which is probably why they have escaped our discovery for so long. Here are just a few examples of what scientists are doing to make us more bio-literate.

• How many species of life exist on Earth? According to the National Science Foundation's "Tree of Life" project, there may be anywhere from 5 million to 100 million species on Earth. So far we have identified only about 2 million. [url]
• Penn State researchers have been studying the ultrasmall microbial population found at a depth of over 3,000 meters in a 120,000-year-old Greenland glacier ice core. They were able to isolate a variety of tiny microbes that were either phylogenetically new or related to other ultramicrobacteria. [url]
• Microbiologists are studying "thermophiles," the bacteria found at deep-sea hydrothermal vents where temperatures can exceed 350 degrees Celsius. The record for life growing at high temperatures is 113.25 degrees Celsius. Thermophiles are not only useful in helping us look for evidence of past and present life on other planets, but they also produce enzymes that can be used at high temperatures and for genetic research. [url]
• A NASA-sponsored expedition in 2011 found a huge phytoplankton bloom underneath the Arctic ice pack in the Chukchi Sea. This was the first direct observation of an under-ice algal bloom, which was previously thought to be impossible, and now scientists think such algal blooms may actually be more widespread and could be an important indicator of significant shifts in Arctic ecosystems, such as those caused by global warming.[url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

The Supreme Court will be hearing a big patent case tomorrow. We wrote about it back in 2011 when the federal circuit appeals court (CAFC) put forth an absolutely horrible ruling basically saying that a farmer who legally purchased "community seeds" that included (legally) some Monsanto "Roundup Ready" seeds, violated Monsanto's patent. The case is a bit complex, but I'll just rerun my summary from back then:

The farmer, Vernan Bowman, bought official Monsanto seeds and planted his crops. Yet, Monsanto has rules that say you can't re-use "Roundup Ready" seeds, but you can apparently sell "second-generation" seeds to grain elevators for use as "commodity seeds," and doesn't require that there be any restriction on the sale. Bowman later bought a bunch of such "commodity seeds," which included some Roundup Ready seeds, and some that weren't. Bowman was able to determine which of the plants came from Roundup Ready seeds... and then saved those seeds for replanting. Monsanto claimed this was infringement, even though the seeds were legally sold to the grain elevator and then from the elevator to Bowman without restrictions. On top of that, while Bowman had signed an agreement for his original seeds, he did not with this batch (and, indeed, even Monsanto admits he didn't break the user agreement -- just patent infringement for using the seeds).

As we noted at the time, this seemed to be a clear case of patent "exhaustion," which the Supreme Court has supported in the past. Under patent exhaustion, once you sell a "licensed" offering, reselling it further down the supply chain does not infringe on the patent, since the initial purchase was authorized and the patent holder's rights over that specific product have been "exhausted." CAFC said exhaustion didn't apply here because the seeds are "new." That seems like a very troubling interpretation, and hopefully the Supreme Court (yet again) smacks a bad CAFC patent ruling down.

Lots of big farms have come out in support of Monsanto and, tragically, so has the federal government (pdf). Believe it or not, the Business Software Alliance (mostly a Microsoft front) has also sided with Monsanto (pdf), ridiculously arguing that a ruling against Monsanto could "facilitate software piracy on a broad scale." That makes no sense, especially since software "piracy" is a copyright issue, not a patent issue. However, they're arguing that people will interpret this to mean that "temporary additional copies" of software are made all the time (i.e., in RAM) and somehow that leads to piracy. Having read the brief a few times, they never really explain how they make that leap in logic, but they sure do bring up the totally debunked bogus stats about how copyright infringement is costing the industry "billions."

The case really is ridiculous on many levels, but seeing how much firepower has come out in support of Monsanto (basically tons of big companies, lawyers groups and the US government), you can see that a lot of people have a lot of money tied up in keeping this broken system in place. Hopefully the Supreme Court sees through all of that and realizes that this entire case is ridiculous.

The open source programming language Python -- named after the British comedy series "Monty Python" -- became popular in the 1990s, along with two other languages beginning with "P": Perl and PHP. Later, they formed a crucial part of the famous "LAMP" stack -- the GNU/Linux operating system + Apache Web server + MySQL database + Python/Perl/PHP as scripting languages -- that underpinned many of the most successful startups from this time.

Today, Python is used by some of the biggest names in computing, including Google, so you might assume things like trademarks were sorted out years ago. But this posting by Van Lindberg, Chairman of the Python Software Foundation, reveals that's not the case everywhere:

There is a company in the UK that is trying to trademark the use of the term "Python" for all software, services, servers... pretty much anything having to do with a computer. Specifically, it is the company that got a hold on the python.co.uk domain 13 years ago. At that time we weren't looking a lot at trademark issues, and so we didn't get that domain.

Given the rather unplanned way that free software projects have arisen and grown, it's perhaps not such a surprise that crucial domains and trademarks weren't always applied for in every jurisdiction -- after all, coders just want to code, and open source projects generally don't have any resources to pay someone to handle all the boring legal stuff. And so it often gets neglected, as here. Lindberg explains why that wasn't a problem until now:

This hasn't been an issue since then because the python.co.uk domain has, for most of its life, just forwarded its traffic on to the parent companies, veber.co.uk and pobox.co.uk. Unfortunately, Veber has decided that they want to start using the name "Python" for their server products.

We contacted the owners of python.co.uk repeatedly and tried to discuss the matter with them. They blew us off and responded by filing the community trademark application claiming the exclusive right to use "Python" for software, servers, and web services -- everywhere in Europe.

That would obviously represent a real problem for the Python language there. The Python Software Foundation is therefore opposing the community trademark application, and submitting its own. But to succeed, it needs evidence that it has been using the name for many years, and should therefore be granted the trademark. Here's what it would like:

According to our London counsel, some of the best pieces of evidence we can submit to the European trademark office are official letters from well-known companies "using PYTHON branded software in various member states of the EU" so that we can "obtain independent witness statements from them attesting to the trade origin significance of the PYTHON mark in connection with the software and related goods/services." We also need evidence of use throughout the EU.

The post goes on to list a variety of ways in which Python users, particularly those in Europe, can help bolster the Python Software Foundation's case and obtain the trademark in question. The good news is that communities based around free software like Python are likely to have a huge pool of people willing and able to help in these circumstances by providing evidence that throughout Europe, and for over two decades, "Python" has always meant the free software language. However, to avoid similar incidents, and similar mad rushes to gather the required evidence, it would probably be a good idea if other open source projects checked that they had registered all the obvious Web sites and trademarks.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

A few folks sent over this story of Dutch Member of Parliament (MP) Henk Krol being fined about $1,000 for "hacking." He claims that he was just exposing poor security on the part of a Dutch medical laboratory called "Diagnostics for You," which he felt was especially important since there are stricter privacy rules for medical info. Of course, "hacking" is used loosely here: basically, a patient overheard an employee at Diagnostics for You reveal the system password while he was in the lobby, and that patient passed the password along to Krol. So, the "flaw" could be as simple as a stupid employee revealing their password out loud (though, you could argue that a system like that should require two-factor authentication or some other more advanced security than a simple password).

Either way, the court recognized that Krol's intentions may have been in the right place, but faulted him for viewing and printing "more files than necessary" to make his point -- and also for going to the press with his findings at around the same time he notified the laboratory. The court said simply finding the flaw and even downloading some records to prove it to the lab would have been fine, but that he went too far (even if he carefully redacted personal info). And then going to the press immediately when the problem seemed to be more a case of a bad employee revealing their password, just seemed like too much. As the court noted: "the problem was not so acute that immediate use of media was necessary."

Of course, this kind of thing is often a struggle when it comes to security hacking. Different people have different opinions on whether or not it's appropriate to go to the press, and also how much information to access. But it seems to be handled on a case by case basis, rather than with clear rules. There are some norms among security researchers -- and that tends to include giving a company some period of time to fix things -- but this remains an area of the law that is sometimes a bit fuzzy. You want companies to respond quickly to security flaws, and sometimes going to the press ensures getting a real response faster. But, it also seems less likely to cause significant damage if you contact them first.

Perhaps MP Krol can now try to pass some legislation with standards on how to handle security breaches found without having them turn into legal cases against the researchers.

We've written many times in the past about how, thanks to the ridiculous sense of "ownership society" that is often presented to the world around copyright, patents and trademarks, it's unfortunately common to see massive overclaiming of certain rights. That's especially true of trademarks, which really shouldn't be lumped in with patents and copyrights, since they're very very different. Trademarks, as we've noted before, are really about avoiding consumer confusion, so they don't buy one product trusting that it's another product. It is not about "ownership" in any sense. And yet so many companies (and individuals) think that if they get a trademark on a word or phrase, they can basically stop anyone else from ever using it.

The latest example of trademark overreach comes from PNC Bank, who threatened a reporter at the San Francisco Chronicle for having the gall to use the phrase "virtual wallet" in an article. PNC sent a legal nastygram, telling the SF Chronicle that it must "refrain from misuse of our client's VIRTUAL WALLET trademark." Except, of course, that's hogwash. Nothing in trademark law could possibly make that true, and the Chronicle's James Temple responded appropriately:

To which I say: virtual wallet, virtual wallet, virtual wallet, virtual wallet.

Furthermore, he notes that the trademark itself is almost certainly invalid, as the phrase was in widespread common usage for many years before 2008 when the bank sought the trademark (and, ridiculously, the USPTO granted it).

In late 1994, Newsweek published an article titled "The Age of Cybercash" that informed readers: "Your virtual wallet may soon be here."

By the end of 2007, the term "virtual wallet" had appeared more than 700 times in the English press, including in American Banker, the Economist, the New York Times and Consumer Reports.

Nevertheless, the following year, PNC Financial Services Group launched a "Virtual Wallet" product. It sought trademark protection, asking to own the commercial rights to two consecutive words that had been pushed together by the press and industry more than a decade earlier.

Temple goes on to call out others who have sought to abuse trademark law to "homestead" the English language -- including our favorite trademark troll ever, Leo Stoller, who "trademarked" all kinds of words including "stealth," "all goods and services," "chutzpah," and (oh yeah) "Google" which he claimed to have been using since 1981.

As Temple notes, PNC is trying to avoid having the phrase "virtual wallet" be declared generic such that their registered trademark can be eliminated, but if they didn't want that to happen, they probably shouldn't have gone with such an already generic and descriptive phrase.

We stayed away from the story that made the rounds last week, concerning the claims that The Pirate Bay was going to file a lawsuit against Finnish anti-piracy agency CIAPC for setting up a site that parodies The Pirate Bay, using a copy of TPB's stylesheet. Knowing how TPB operates, we assumed that this was not an ordinary situation, even as eager reporters mocked the site for its apparent hypocrisy. Having seen how TPB has acted in the past, we figured there was more to this, and this week the details are starting to come out.

TPB has now said that it has reported the parody CIAPC site to the Economic Crime Unit. Why? Well, it appears the whole thing is really about exposing the double standard by Finnish law enforcement. You see, recently, Finnish prosecutors went after a parody site by Finnish "software developer, researcher and internet activist" Matti Nikki. So, TPB, is noting that it just wants to see the law applied equally (by which it means, showing how farcical the law is, knowing that law enforcement will never prosecute this):

“In a similar case, the prosecution and the Helsinki Court of Appeals have found that a parody site can violate the moral rights of the original author. Changing the logo or making slight edits to the text are not enough to remove this liability,” they informed the police.

The Finnish EFF supported this claim, explaining to TorrentFreak (in the link above) that seeing how prosecutors reacted would be quite telling:

“It’s interesting to see, how the police reacts to Pirate Bay’s demands. On facts the case is indeed very similar to Matti Nikki’s case, in which the prosecutor decided to bring the charges on behalf of Save the Children.

“The law should be the same for everyone so now the objectivity of the Finnish police is going to be tested. Anyway as others have already pointed out, even if Pirate Bay loses the case, it’s a victory for their cause.”

So, while others were mocking, it appears there was a much more serious thought process going on here. One of the following possibilities are likely to occur:

• Finnish prosecutors do absolutely nothing, thus exposing their complete double standard in enforcing the law.
• A lawsuit happens, and TPB "loses" the case, as it's an obvious parody situation which should be allowed -- and thus, TPB reinforces the protections for parody.
• A lawsuit happens TPB actually wins the case, which most people would equally recognize as preposterous after seeing the initial press coverage of the story.

It's looking like this was, yet again, a more clever move than many gave them credit for initially.

For years, India was held up as a country that just didn't respect copyright law at all. We'd heard the stories about how widespread piracy was for all kinds of content. However, as we'd seen elsewhere, the claims that piracy was somehow "killing" the industry didn't really hold up under scrutiny. In fact, the Indian movie market (Bollywood) continued to grow massively and to thrive, even as piracy was rampant. That certainly seemed to contradict the old claim that infringement kills the incentives for content creation. And now, according to the Economic Times, many Indian studios have more or less stopped even talking about "piracy" because the box office is booming. The secret? It shouldn't be a surprise, since it's exactly what people have been talking about for years: making the authorized versions of the content more widely available more quickly in a variety of formats, thereby cutting off one of the main reasons why people seek out infringing copies:

A few years ago, theatre releases were limited to tier-I and tier-II cities due to high costs of prints. It took between three months and a year for a film to be released elsewhere. Consequently, films reached television and home video only after six months of a theatrical release. Pirates gleefully filled that vacuum by bombarding consumers with cheap optical discs....

Not anymore. The brightest stars of the Rs 100-crore constellation are theatres and prints.... Digital prints, which cost one-fifth of analog prints, have facilitated the swift reach of movies across the country.

There's an infographic that shows most movie releases in 2011 were shown on about double the number of movies screens as similar movies just the year before. That's a massive increase in availability for theater showings. As for the home market, while it still competes with pirated copies, quality seems to be winning:

According to Dwyer, the better-off who earlier paid to have high-quality cinema systems at home are no longer interested in poor quality (pirated) copies. "The quality of DVDs and Blu-ray discs is excellent with extra features and at a reasonable price."

While the article still says that there's a lot of infringement going on, it's just fading into the background for the most part, especially given the record-setting revenue numbers.

For one, producers are happy with the current box-office fortunes. There is also no evidence to show big hits suffering from online piracy. On the contrary, data crawls suggest that the most downloaded films are nearly always the biggest hits, according to Lawrence Liang of Bangalore's Alternative Law Forum, one of the authors of the India chapter of the Media Piracy report.

And, thus, the studios have finally realized that paying more attention to improving the authorized market is probably more important than "stomping out piracy."

What has really changed is the focus on piracy. As the case of AACT shows, the struggles against pirates are few and far between to make even news, leave alone act as a deterrent. "The tendency has been to focus always on the numbers we are capturing rather than looking at leaked markets," says Uday Singh, managing director, MPDA.

Of course, the article is still full of dire warnings about how the studios need to stay vigilant or everything might fall apart, but that seems based on random hyperbole, rather than any actual evidence.

None of this should be even remotely surprising. For years we've been pointing out that if you make works available, make them convenient and reasonably priced, and stop treating your customers like criminals, people will pay. Sure, there will always be some piracy, but those people are unlikely to pay no matter what, for the most part, and you just need to stop worrying about them and focus on giving more fans more reasons to actually pay. It appears that India is an example of a place where that's actually happening.

For years we've talked about the infamous Special 301 Report, in which copyright maximalists complain to the USTR about countries they feel aren't cracking down enough on "infringement." The USTR then comes out with an official report that lists what countries have been "naughty" (with two levels of naughtiness). There is no objective measure -- basically the USTR just lists out the countries that the biggest maximalists dislike the most. And then the State Department uses that bogus list to apply pressure to foreign governments to get them to ratchet up their draconian copyright laws. While the "comment" period is open to anyone, it tends to be dominated by maximalists. We tried filing our own comment a few years back, but have since realized that the deck is completely stacked. In fact, even the official questions they ask you to answer are heavily biased so that you can only complain about other countries that are "denying adequate and effective protection for intellectual property rights."

So while we figured it wasn't worth filing anything, our friends over at CCIA, who have backed some of the research that we've done, put in their own comment, which called out Germany for its attack on fair use. As you may recall, Germany has been pushing forward with this plan to force search engines to pay up for posting snippets and links to news sites. This is a pretty clear attack on basic fair use concepts that allow the internet to function. If you believe, as we do, that fair use is a right, then Germany's actions are, technically, a "denial of adequate and effective protection for intellectual property rights," and thus the country belongs on the Special 301 list. As CCIA writes:

These comments address a troubling new legislative proposal in Germany that would violate long-established rights of Internet services to make use of information online. The legislation would create a new Leistungsschutzrecht for press publishers, such as newspapers and magazines. Contrary to Article 10(1) of the Berne Convention, this proposed legislation would prohibit Internet platforms from displaying snippets of news stories without obtaining the publisher’s permission and paying a license fee for these quotations. While it is as of yet unclear, we expect that the new right will be administered by a collecting society, with newspapers that wish to exercise the new right being required to join. If this comes to pass, no search engine or affected social media platform will be able to directly negotiate with any publisher; they would instead be forced to enter into a blanket, compulsory license, or be penalized as an infringer of IP rights. Thus, the proposed legislation is simply a government mandated compulsory license, transferring money from one industry to another. As such, it would constitute a costly new market access barrier. Some commentators have even speculated that the legislation might force news search services and affected social media out of the German market, by not returning results for German IP addresses. At the same time, this proposal would have obvious debilitating effects on German-based Internet platforms.

There's a lot to be said for this argument, and for recognizing that user rights are an important part of copyright, not just the rights of the copyright holders. In fact, it's quite reasonable to argue that the public's rights should greatly outweigh the privileges granted under copyright. And, now, we will see if the USTR actually pays attention to such things, or if they will ignore it and only focus on maximalist privileges, rather than the public's rights. At the very least, this provides an excellent suggestion for filings in the future: there are lots of countries that don't have nearly enough respect for fair use or for other rights of the public when it comes to copyright.

Another trademark dispute, another horrible and negative story where the mark owner acts like a jackass, right? I mean, the trend is clear, from 60's rock legends suing over penis-apps, to game producers suing over terms nearly a century old, you get the idea that everyone with a trademark is Oscar the Grouch. They just can't help but call in their big shot lawyers, who immediately send out the cease and desist notices, even though they'd rather mail out one of those Harry Potter howler letters or possibly a small nuclear weapon. It's inevitable.

Or, then again, perhaps it isn't. Nick writes in with the tale of an absolutely brilliant response to a trademark dispute from the mark holder, who not only left the lawyers at home and replaced them with a polite letter, but was so over the top kind about the whole thing as to suggest other words for the violator's product, turning him into a potential customer.

Early in December here at Wordnik we got a nice email from one of our loyal users, letting us know that there was a word game in the app store using the name “Wordnik.” It didn’t have our heart logo (or even our “gearheart” ) so our correspondent wasn’t sure it was ours … and it wasn’t. So we took a look at the game, and it was called Wordnik. And there was contact info for the developer.

This is typically where we'd see a hateful C&D notice sent, filled with accusations of theft, reports of untold gazillions in very real harm done by the violation, and the promise that if the violation doesn't cease the lawyers will swing by soon to eat the faces off of their children.

Pictured: Trademark lawyer
Image source: CC BY-SA 2.0

For some strange reason, however, the Wordnik folks decided that there just might be a better way to go than all out war. While acknowledging that their initial reaction was to be somewhat upset over the use of their mark, they instead chose to send the following email (edited only for formatting):

One of the users of our website, Wordnik.com, pointed out to us that your iOS app is also using the name “Wordnik”. You may not be aware that we have applied for a US trademark for the name “Wordnik” and our application has been approved for registration. Since the Wordnik API powers many word games on the web and on mobile devices, our trademark filing for the name “Wordnik” also includes its use in combination with computer games.

I’d rather not drag our lawyers into this (expensive for both of us) — but given our trademark status, you probably want to consider renaming your app (and maybe even using our API, check it out at developer.wordnik.com). How about:

Wordify
Wordista
Wordian
Wordeur

This list of English suffixes may help, too: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:English_suffixes

I hope to hear back from you by Dec 31, 2012.

The response was everything they had hoped for. Not only did the other developer respond promptly, promising to change the name of his app and acknowledging that he hadn't realized his error, but the two sides continued to communicate about several topics, including background on the suggestions the Wordnik folks had made and Wordnik's own API and how it could be used to enhance the previously offending app. Not only was this a kind way to handle a trademark request, but it turned out to be an advertisement for the Wordnik product itself. Then, because apparently Wordnik is trying to win some kind of peace award here, they sent the guy a Wordnik T-shirt. The offending app has since changed its name to Wordogram and all is well.

Wordnik notes that this approach may not work universally, but why shouldn't it be the first attempt in most instances? They say it best themselves:

From our point of view, this was the best possible outcome. We defended our trademark; we met a cool, kindred-spirit developer and had a fun conversation; and we found a new word game to play (and possibly gained another API client). And it’s likely none of this would have happened if we’d sent a pissy email, guns blazing.

Let's hear it for kindness and sanity.

It seems like every other headline is about drones these days -- drones being used in battle, drones being used by the police, drones as a threat to privacy. As we've noted before, it's easy to get the impression that drones are inherently evil, and should be made illegal or something (good luck with that.) But drones are simply a new kind of technology, largely made possible by Moore's Law and the dramatic reductions in size, weight and cost it has brought with it for electronic control devices. Like any other technology, drones can be used for all kinds of purposes, both good and bad. It's just that we have heard mostly about the more dubious ones. To remedy that, here's a heart-warming tale of how drones could tackle one of the most serious threats facing wildlife around the world: poaching.

Conservation group WWF has announced plans to deploy surveillance drones to aid its efforts to protect species in the wild, as the South African government revealed that 82 rhinos had been poached there since the new year.

…

WWF's three-year project also involves combining data from unmanned aerial vehicles, cheap mobile phone technology tracking animal movements, and handheld devices carried by rangers, in a bid to outsmart often heavily armed poachers who bribe corrupt officials to avoid patrols and find wildlife.

This sounds like a brilliant use of technologies to solve several problems. The huge areas involved make it almost impossible for a few rangers to cover, but multiple drones flying high could easily do that. Similarly, using drones would avoid the dangers that rangers face on a daily basis when dealing with poachers prepared to shoot if discovered. Drones might even be used for more aggressive management of poachers -- for example, safely disabling their vehicles. Given these and other benefits, it's no wonder, then, that drones are being deployed for similar purposes around the world:

Drones are already being used by conservationists to monitor wildlife, such as orangutan populations in Sumatra, anti-whaling activists are using them against the Japanese whaling fleet, and a charity in Kenya recently beat its target of raising $35,000 in crowdfunding for a drone to protect rhinos and other wildlife in the country's Laikipia district.

As well as using crowdfunding to pay for more of these drones, one interesting approach would be to apply crowdsourcing to help protect animals directly. If the live feeds from drones were available on a Web site for anyone to watch, it would be possible to monitor huge areas 24 hours a day by using online volunteers around the world who drop by to keep an eye on things for a while. If they spotted something suspicious, they could alert the Web site, which would pass on the information to the relevant rangers nearby who could take a look on their screens and, if necessary, on the ground.

This would help protect vulnerable animals, share the burden of monitoring them with drones, and help people around the world to become more engaged with conservation. Who could possibly have any problems with this kind of drone use -- apart from the poachers, of course?

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

[If there's a new form of communication out there, you can be damn sure that the Department of Justice wants a piece of it. And if it doesn't, your local law enforcement, the FBI, the NSA, the CIA and any number of other government agencies do. The DOJ's justification seems to be that any new form of communication doesn't deserve protection from government snooping simply because there's no specific legal precedent preventing it from requesting the data. Julian Sanchez summed up this attitude concisely in this Tweet:

If the telephone were a new invention, DOJ would be insisting the phone company record & store all conversations, Just In Case.

— Julian Sanchez (@normative) December 3, 2012

To that end, here's that Tweet brought to thrilling life, via the fake news-like article below.]

PRESIDENT MCKINLEY ASSASSINATED! RECOVERS BRIEFLY BEFORE FINALLY SUCCUMBING TO ILL EFFECTS OF 'INTERNAL BULLET SYNDROME'!

While our grand nation still mourns the passing of President McKinley at the hands of an assassin, our fine gentlemen in Congress are meeting with our other fine gentlemen in the Department of Justice in an effort to prevent future tragedies such as this.

The assassin, Leon Czolgosz, an American-born foreigner of Polish descent, fired two bullets in a cowardly fashion at our nation's leader, striking our President in his glorious abdomen. The cowardly bullet then refused to exit the President's body, turning the wound gangrenous, a medical condition which can only be cured by amputation. A plan to save the President through an experimental "abdomendectomy" was briefly entertained before McKinley's sudden onset of death made the discussion irrelevant.

"Czolgosz's actions mark a turning point for this nation," stated one lawmaker. "We can no longer expect our presidents to remain sans bullet wounds if we do not engage these activists on their own level. We vow to take action, together with the members of Department of Justice, and other unnamed or unformed national security agencies. We are declaring war on anarchy."

LAWMAKERS DECLARE WAR ON IDEOLOGY, TELEPHONES!

Lawmakers have nearly unanimously approved the Department of Justice's recommendation that anarchists be hunted down and brought to justice before another such tragedy can occur. Citizens who have overheard derogatory comments about our fine Government are encouraged to report these occurrences to the Department of Justice by calling KL5-5503 between the hours of 8 am and 12 pm alternating Tuesdays. All calls are confidential and no information will be shared with anyone not currently on the party line.

"Anarchy isn't simply an ideology," stated one irate Congressman who wished to remain anonymous. "It's a threat to our American way of life, one that relies heavily on an unchallenged government and a careful blend of horse and automobile travel."

The Department of Justice has also recommended, in order to battle this rising tide of anarchy, our nation's telephone companies be required to transcribe every conversation occurring via this possibly dangerous communication device. A spokesman for the DOJ stated: "Czolgosz and his contemporaries were known 'early adopters,' and had been misusing our nascent 'talking boxes' to recruit Americans for anarchist activities, including fundraising picnics with no distinct starting time and a plan to violently overthrow the leadership currently controlling Ward 32."

The telephone, which allows young ne'er-do-wells to talk avidly of destroying the nation, is to be feared and distrusted, according to the Department. Its report, composed in great haste and at great length, recommends that all telephone companies build a secure room in which a security agent may be placed to record telephone conversations. This room will give the agent access to all phone lines as well as grant them the right to interrupt recorded conversations with requests to "slow down a bit," "please repeat that," and "English, motherfucker. Do you speak it?" All calls are to be dictated live to each agent's personal assistant, using a secure typewriter built to exacting and impossible specifications.

CONVERSATIONS RECORDED FOR 'CONTINUED SAFETY OF THE NATION!' CRAZY MAN WORRIES ABOUT 'PRIVACY!'

The Department's spokesman has pointed out that, despite listening in on every conversation transmitted via US phone lines, it only has an interest in suspicious conversations and derogatory comments about the US government (including derogatory comments about interruptions by surveillance agents). "Americans who harbor only warm, patriotic feelings towards our President and Government have nothing to worry about and should feel free to discuss any number of subjects without fear of recrimination, including sporting events, lurid gossip, suspicious goings on in the immigrant district, the superiority of the horse and buggy, violations of the "No Child Left Behind" labor law, non-lurid gossip, jazz as an overrated genre, the rejuvenating powers of Cooper's All-In-One Snake Oil™, gambling winnings over $500 and post-millennial anxiety."

An obviously insane lawmaker protested this proposition, claiming that transcribing every phone call made by American citizens is a clear violation of their "expectation of privacy." This phrase generated blank stares from nearly all in attendance at the proposal's mooting. One enraged Senator fired back: "We've been using 'moot point' incorrectly for several years now, no doubt due to the seeds of confusion sown by C... zolog... whatshisname and his ilk! It means 'something to be debated,' rather than 'something already decided!' Curse their anarchic blood!" Another responded: "Americans have no 'expectation of privacy' because any good American has nothing to hide. Speaking of which, we should require all markets and dry goods purveyors to log the names and addresses of those purchasing drapes, blinds and roll-down window shades!"

If the plan is adopted, the Department of Justice expects it will generate nearly 100,000 pages of banal conversation each day, spiking severely on Mothers' Day. These recorded conversations will be forwarded via courier to the home office in Washington DC where agents are expected to maintain a pace of 30 baseless extrapolations per 12-hour shift. "This is an undertaking of grave importance if the safety of the American public is to be ensured," stated a Department of Justice spokesman who wished remain anonymous and have his privacy respected. "The greatest threat to our nation is the free-thinking American citizen, whose lofty ideals and 'this system sucks' attitude pose a risk to the health and well-being of every elected official, except possibly Teddy Roosevelt, who has armed himself with a large stick and has already beaten two interlopers to death just this morning alone. Our war on anarchy and communication has no clear end point, but we will not be deterred or underfunded!"