On June 20, 2008, counsel for Bernard Malik sent a cease-and-desist letter via email to the administrator of ScamFraudAlert.com, a forum site that focuses on alleged Internet scams, security threats, and fraudulent practices. The letter asserted that a forum user going by "justiceismine" posted false and defamatory statements about Mr. Malik and his organization, International Open University, on ScamFraudAlert.com (see the letter for details). It demanded that ScamFraudAlert.com remove the allegedly defamatory posts and provide "identifying details, including but not limited to the e-mail address and login IP addresses for 'justiceismine' so that Mr. Malik can take further legal actions."

The letter also claimed that ScamFraudAlert.com is not entitled to the protection of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act because it "solicit[s] and encourage[s]" defamatory posts from users and subscribers, citing as support the Ninth Circuit's decision in Fair Housing Council v. Roommate.com, LLC. This is an unconventional reading of the Roommate.com case. Counsel also claimed that the letter itself is copyrighted and advised ScamFraudAlert.com not to publish it.  The letter elaborated:

Contrary to the opinion of some Internet bloggers, the Federal Courts that have ruled on the issue, as recently as November of 2007, have held that an attorney's cease and desist letter is protected by copyright laws. Any unauthorized publication of this letter will potentially expose you to substantial damages for copyright infringement. 

The November 2007 case referenced in the letter,  In re Subpoena Issued Pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to: 43SB.COM, LLC, 2007 WL 4335441 (D. Idaho Dec. 7, 2007), sparked a flurry of online debate on the topic of the copyrightability of cease-and-desist letters. While the Dozier Law Firm and others (including apparently counsel for Mr. Malik) view the case as establishing copyright protection for cease-and-desist letters, the case only touched on the narrow question of whether the C&D in that case was sufficiently original to be protected by copyright, and the court expressly stated that it would "not go into an in-depth analysis of the merits of a copyright infringement claim in determining whether to quash this subpoena." Most importantly, the court did not address the strong argument that publishing a cease-and-desist letter for purposes of documenting it and commenting on it is fair use.

The administrator and Mr. Malik's lawyer exchanged additional emails without coming to agreement about the disputed content. As of July 7, 2008, no further action has transpired.

Update:

7/15/08 - Counsel for Malik sent a DMCA takedown notice to ScamFraudAlert's web host, NationalNet, Inc., claiming that posting email communications between counsel and ScamFraudAlert infringed Mr. Malik's copyrights.

On June 10, 2008, the Associated Press ("AP") sent a takedown request under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to Rogers Cadenhead, the founder of Drudge Retort, a liberal alternative to (and parody of) the well-known Drudge Report, demanding that he remove six user-submitted blog entries and one user comment on the site that contained quotations from AP articles.  

The Drudge Retort is a community site similar to Digg and Reddit, allowing its users to contribute blog entries, comments, and links to interesting news articles. According to Cadenhead, none of the six posts republished the full text of an AP story; instead, each contained quotes ranging in length from 33 to 79 words (although the posts have been removed, Cadenhead has provided a summary of them here).

While the June 10, 2008 takedown request from AP only mentions copyright infringement as a justification for the removal, a June 3 letter sent by AP's Intellectual Property Governance Coordinator, Irene Keselman, also asserted a "hot news" misappropriation claim:

Please note that contrary to your assertion, AP considers that the Drudge Retort users' use of AP content does not fall within the parameters of fair use. The use is not fair use simply because the work copied happened to be a news article and that the use is of the headline and the first few sentences only. This is a misunderstanding of the doctrine of "fair use." AP considers taking the headline and lede of a story without a proper license to be an infringement of its copyrights, and additionally constitutes "hot news" misappropriation.

It doesn't appear that AP is continuing to pursue a "hot news" misappropriation claim against Drudge Retort.  This little known legal doctrine, which saw its genesis in 1918 in International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918), seems to have fallen out of favor because the 1976 Copyright Act preempts all legal and equitable rights that are equivalent to the exclusive rights offered by federal copyright law. As a result, in National Basketball Ass'n v. Motorola, 105 F.3d 841, 844 (1997), one of the few cases to address a "hot news" claim, the Second Circuit set an exceptionally high standard for such claims to be viable, requiring, among other things, that the information be time-sensitive; the defendant be in direct competition with the plaintiff; and the continued publishing of the "hot news" would so reduce the plaintiff's incentive to produce the product or service that its existence or quality would be substantially threatened.

On June 16, 2008, the New York Times reported that AP was reconsidering its request while it creates a set of guidelines for bloggers and websites that excerpt AP material.

Update:

On June 20, 2008, Cadenhead and AP announced that they had settled their copyright dispute.  As of June 23, the six posts remain inaccessible.

Representatives of rock band Metallica demanded that websites and blogs take down reviews of unreleased songs from the band's forthcoming album. The band's management had played six songs from the album for a group of U.K. music journalists and bloggers, including writers for Metal Hammer, Rock Sound, The Quietus, Classic Rock, and others, at a listening party in London on June 04, 2008. According to one attendee, those invited were not asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement.

Following contact from a third party representing QPrime, Metallica's management, at least three sites – Metal Hammer, Rock Sound, and The Quietus – removed their reviews. Classic Rock edited their review to remove any specific information about the songs or the album's sound. The Listening Post cites sources as saying the band's management wanted the reviews pulled because they were based upon an early mix of the album.

On June 11, 2008, Metallica posted a message to their website stating that the takedowns had been instigated by QPrime without the band's permission. The message included links to reviews from Kerrang!, Metal Hammer, and The Quietus. Following the June 11 posting, all of the reviews were placed back online.