Here we go again...Iron Maiden sued over the rights of 6 songs

CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
And what are they going to cite? The out-of-court settlement is basically undiclosed & secret.

Have a look online at the Procol Harem & Bobby Valentino songwriting copyright cases that happened in the UK. The evidence brought in these cases was pretty flimy; none of the stuff anyone is talking about here with bootlegs & dated envelopes. It basically did come down to word against word. And the "wee guy" won in both those cases. This is what people should be reading to get an idea of how this case might go in court.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8176352.stm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Valentino_(British_musician)#Legal_actions
Click to expand...

Are you aware of any cases for lesser known tracks, like the ones McKay is suing for? I'm curious to what the settlements would have been in such cases.

All the examples listed in this thread are for huge hits that would have made tons of money. Even Run to the Hills would be small fry compared to them in terms of revenue.
 
Forostar said:
It might matter to me what I think:

If they not wish to prove that the other party is wrong, I find that lame. Hiding something means you could be wrong. As a Maiden fan I'm more satisfied by knowing the truth. Hiding the truth, or doing your best to hide it, means there's a fair chance that the other party is right.

Money, ligitation, trouble, all too convenient excuses for me.
Click to expand...
I'd hope it matters to you what you think! :D

Look, I understand your point, but it's also fair to not want to air your dirty laundry in public; assuming it's dirty. And you're assuming. I'm all for transparency & truth too; just not sure how relevant/important that is here. For the record: I don't think Maiden would harm their own credibility by the truth (whatever that happens to be) being publically known in this instance. So for a compromise to keep you & Maiden happy: would you accept a out-of-court settlement & a joint statement from both parties explaining the agreement they'd come to? ;)
Forostar said:
As long as you do not wish to tell your fans the truth, I think that stinks.
Click to expand...
Saying nothing is pretty annoying I suppose; but you're possibly assigning great importance to something that Steve/Maiden don't think is particularly important. Nobody's asking you to be a fan...
srfc said:
Are you aware of any cases for lesser known tracks, like the ones McKay is suing for? I'm curious to what the settlements would have been in such cases.


All the examples listed in this thread are for huge hits that would have made tons of money. Even Run to the Hills would be small fry compared to them in terms of revenue.
Click to expand...

The second case (Bluebells) is pretty small-fry; I doubt anyone outside the UK has even heard of the track & acts in question.
 
Last edited:
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
IThe second case (Bluebells) is pretty small-fry; I doubt anyone outside the UK has even heard of the track & acts in question.
Click to expand...

I'd no idea who the band were or what of the many "young at heart" esque songs it could have been, but when the paragraph on wiki mentioned a fiddle part, I knew exactly what track it was. I reckon it's certainly more recognizable to an average joe than any Maiden track.

It was number one and also spent 12 weeks in the charts on 2 occassions which is a good bit better than any Maiden track. http://www.officialcharts.com/search/singles/young at heart/

And the court awarded 100k for that
 
I think how the judgement is carried out should be similar. You're correct in thinking the money involved may be considerably less though. Still, people are right in saying that if it went to court Steve may well say he wrote the lyrics & that'll be the end of the matter if there is no further evidence produced. But if there is then maybe all these bootlegs & envelopes from the 70's may well be important. Just seems unlikely it'll make it that far.
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
Saying nothing is pretty annoying I suppose; but you're possibly assigning great importance to something that Steve/Maiden don't think is particularly important. Nobody's asking you to be a fan...
Click to expand...

They're a business and they certainly cherry pick things that get revealed to the public. Not in the hiding the dirty laundry sense, more like there's so much information going on in a big music business such as Maiden that 99% isn't important for 99% of the fans. Saying if you don't approve of their picks don't be a fan is harsh, you can certainly be displeased and annoyed by the fact that there's a bit of a shroud going on with credits of some early songs. I get really annoyed by Urlich and Hammet's playing sometimes but I'm still a big Metallica fan.
 
Zare said:
They're a business and they certainly cherry pick things that get revealed to the public. Not in the hiding the dirty laundry sense, more like there's so much information going on in a big music business such as Maiden that 99% isn't important for 99% of the fans. Saying if you don't approve of their picks don't be a fan is harsh, you can certainly be displeased and annoyed by the fact that there's a bit of a shroud going on with credits of some early songs. I get really annoyed by Urlich and Hammet's playing sometimes but I'm still a big Metallica fan.
Click to expand...
Agree with the first thing you say. Second bit: harsh? Maybe. I meant: Maiden are doing what they think is best & you can like it or lump it. Steve's always had this attitude in respect to the band musically, so why is it particularly surprising that he would take this approach here; if indeed the approach is being led by Steve. Not saying you or Foro don't understand that; just saying you don't really have a voice in the matter. It's not like public pressure on this board is likely to persuade Steve/Maiden otherwise. Plus, a further factor that is possibly going to play into a quick(er) out-of-court settlement is the wish for Steve/Maiden at this stage of their careers to not have this hanging over them as they exit the world musically. It would be a terrible way to end their careers, with all this garbage going on.
 
Absolutely you are entitled to this view. A part of me agrees, although I sympathise & also agree with Foro's "truth" point(s). Or at least I would normally. I'm really not sure if I care enough in this instance though.
 
If Maiden settle out of court it will prove NOTHING as to who is wrong or right.

It will just be that Maiden are following their legal representative's advice. It could be their lawyers say there is a possibility of losing in Court, even though they are innocent.

No legal system is fool proof. Their are for sure innocent people in prison right now as they were advised to plead guilty to a lesser charge, as part of a deal, (that they are still innocent of), as the possibility of being found guilty to the greater charge (and the prison time) is deemed too much of a risk as they couldn't prove they didn't do it, whilst evidence (wrongly) suggests they did.

Settling out of court could just mean that Maiden think it's a compromise worth taking, due to the risk of losing in court (or to make bad press go away more quickly) even though they may be innocent. And McKay could choose to settle out of court (even if everything he says is true) because the cash (though lesser) out ways the risk of losing everything in court.

Hope that makes sense!
 
Last edited:
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
Not saying you or Foro don't understand that; just saying you don't really have a voice in the matter.
Click to expand...

Completely agreed. I never thought otherwise. But there's a lot of potential reactions - saying if you don't agree don't be a fan is black/white scenario. Perun is a big fan yet he doesn't care, and he is entitled to that, and that's what I'm talking about. This is not a take it or leave it situation - I can be perfectly pissed about them credits (which I am far, far from in reality) but still think they're the best band in the world.
 
Zare said:
Completely agreed. I never thought otherwise. But there's a lot of potential reactions - saying if you don't agree don't be a fan is black/white scenario. Perun is a big fan yet he doesn't care, and he is entitled to that, and that's what I'm talking about. This is not a take it or leave it situation - I can be perfectly pissed about them credits (which I am far, far from in reality) but still think they're the best band in the world.
Click to expand...
Okay, that's fine. But Foro's triple post (earlier) sort of came across as him thinking fans are deserving of some sort of natural justice, some sort of truth verdict; which I don't really think I quite agree with. He'll maybe clarify further what he meant. This is probably where/who my barbed comment was aimed at...
Welsh Phantom said:
Still a possible risk that that judgment is not the one given though.
Click to expand...
Indeed.
 
Forostar said:
I know Steve/Maiden can do what they want. But I have an opinion about it. The better they handle it, the more positive my opinion. I just don't ignore everything they do.
Click to expand...
Forostar said:
I'm glad I never made an agreement with the band or the other fans that I can only be a fan without caring a fuck about how they handle things. That's not how it works.
Click to expand...
But you're categorically stating that by not taking this to court Steve will be effectively denying you & the public/fans the truth. Yes/no? There must be some middle ground; he can still "handle it" well enough (in your eyes) by not going to court surely? I just think you're reaching here. I do not think this is something Steve has to do to make things right i.e. go to court.

Plus, by the amount of discussion going on here it should be plainly obvious I am not "ignoring everything they do". I just don't necessarily agree with you. Got to be allowed too, eh?
 
Foro, I get your side of things. It would be nice if the band could tell us everything. But I really don't want to see the band going to court for a year over this...I mean, it's in the past. Give Dennis some money and send him on his way. If it impedes band activities, if it makes it even a fraction of a percent less likely that we get another album or another tour out of the band, then fuck it, not worth it. All that matters to me at this point is the music. I don't hero worship the band members, they're so very, very...human.

I suspect there will be a public statement with any settlement, usually along the lines of neither side admits the other is correct.
 
^ I think it should be multiple sessions even without appeals and such, which could last few months...enough to fuck up the schedule
 
Yeah, an actual intellectual copyright case takes months and months from the filings to the resolution. That's a lot of lawyer time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top