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

Seems like they've tried to beat McKay at his own game and play it exactly as he has. The truth probably lies somewhere in between the two sides shown here.
 
Perun said:
This article is quite a nasty piece of character assassination towards McKay. Except for the comments screenshots, it provides hardly any proof for any claims about McKay. The allegations of McKay as having mental health problems, alcohol problems and past associations with Gary Glitter which he allegedly is taking pleasure in, even if true (for which no evidence is provided), have absolutely nothing to do with this case and are purely meant to defame McKay's character. Concerning the content, this article is absolutely on the same level as those Blabbermouth comments, whether they be genuine (which I believe) or not.
Click to expand...
There is important content here though. Steve Goldby says that the evidence he actually gave McKay is undermining to the evidence McKay claims to have, and that he is prepared to present this evidence in court and prove that McKay knew about it. It is also stated that Metaltalk and others have received threatening emails (though noted - McKay is not named as the source). If Goldby makes good his promise, and the threatening emails are produced, it could change the picture somewhat.

It might have been better for them to have left it at that since the rest is, as you say, an anti-McKay rant by and large. Perhaps Goldby took offence at the implication that he had been on McKay's payroll. But McKay (assuming it is indeed he) can't exactly claim he didn't stand up and invite that response. He can sue for defamation if he choses. Very little simpathy for him.
 
Black Abyss Babe said:
So if it's not him then I would have expected him to have hit back pretty hard somewhere else by now. Somewhere our eagle-eyed scouts would have seen it (I think Loudwire was his instrument of choice last time). Has anyone seen anything?
Click to expand...
Who knows. If lawyers are involved, and it was him, they'll probably have said shut up and lie low in the hope that it will blow over very quickly and be forgotten

The article is bizarre, it's very, very biased, with nothing good enough to offer even a token gesture of balance. Even if it is presented as a comment piece, so much of this stuff (and the Blabbermouth rant) is teetering on the edge of really dodgy ground legally. Either both/all(?) parties know what they're doing and are pushing things strategically, or there really are too many loose cannons (no offence intended, LC) who are royally fucking up and going to get in a lot of trouble. They're likely all banking on none of this ever going to a court. Or they believe that internet shit isn't bound by the same rules as other published material, but of course it is.
 
Perun said:
This article is quite a nasty piece of character assassination towards McKay.
Click to expand...

If I understood correctly it is McKay that initially went aggressive on the site owner. Basically if someone gives you shit on the internet you throw it back.
 
Brigantium said:
We don't know that.
Click to expand...
I was more referring to the internet shit-chatting side of things, however if you are implying that they could be behind the anti-Mckay side then fair enough. As far as can be seen at the moment the band is keeping it's hands clean other than an occasional small statement.
 
MW564 said:
I was more referring to the internet shit-chatting side of things, however if you are implying that they could be behind the anti-Mckay side then fair enough. As far as can be seen at the moment the band is keeping it's hands clean other than an occasional small statement.
Click to expand...
I don't think Team Maiden had anything to do with that Metaltalk article - it's transparently pro-Maiden but it seems to be at their own initiative, in response to McKay's claim that they have been complicit in his case. There are some significant claims in there and they are potentially risking contempt of court as much as McKay is - I seriously doubt the Maiden camp would ask anyone else to take such a risk on their behalf, never mind resort to such dubious tactics ...

I think Maiden are maintaining their silence because:
a) They don't want to be in contempt of court, and
b) They are maintaining their dignity.

McKay did some of his publicity through Metaltalk last time - if he then approached them for help and the evidence they provided wasn't what he wanted to see then that could possibly give some context to his suddenly turning to one of their rivals (in this case Blabbermouth) and saying "I chose Babblemouth (sic) because this is in my view one of the best metal websites anywhere". An additional attempt to rile them? Pure speculation I know, just a thought.
 
Magnus said:
Yes, and I had even quoted some of it here

One of the first sites to report the case, I'm pretty sure it wasn't Blabbermouth and I thought, although I'm not sure anymore, that it was Metaltalk, had a link to the pdf.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen that. I suppose those are the lyrics that McKay presented as written by Wilcock, right? A mate of mine who has heard one of the bootlegs with Wilcock told me that at least 4 songs that Wilcock claims to have written, sound very different. He also mentioned that "Floating" (Purgatory) doesn't sound like Purgatory at all.
 
The guy attacks anyone that tries to provide a different point of view, immediately calling names and such. An article that calls him an asshole is correct, because if you try to be objective towards someone that depicts himself as asshole only, what is going to be your objective conclusion?
 
Zare said:
The guy attacks anyone that tries to provide a different point of view, immediately calling names and such. An article that calls him an asshole is correct, because if you try to be objective towards someone that depicts himself as asshole only, what is going to be your objective conclusion?
Click to expand...

Calling him an asshole based on his actions is one thing - indicating he is an alcoholic, a mentally ill person and vaguely implying that he is a pedophile, all with no evidence to back it up, that's a whole different category.
 
Perun said:
Calling him an asshole based on his actions is one thing - indicating he is an alcoholic, a mentally ill person and vaguely implying that he is a pedophile, all with no evidence to back it up, that's a whole different category.
Click to expand...

As I've mentioned before I'd like to see the proof backing that up but then that site might get a cease and desist.
 
MW564 said:
I was more referring to the internet shit-chatting side of things, however if you are implying that they could be behind the anti-Mckay side then fair enough. As far as can be seen at the moment the band is keeping it's hands clean other than an occasional small statement.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It would very risky and stupid to engineer this kind of smear campaign, but given that everyone else seems to be doing legally risky and stupid things....
 
I'm pretty sure "contempt of court" is something that only really happens during a court case. How can McKay be in danger of this by making comments online now, months or possibly years before the court case has started?
 
Forostar said:
Mentalfart.fucks.net


Crappy, unobjective webzine.
Click to expand...

Tsk, tsk, such an aggressive language. It seems you have already taken sides... :D

Let's not forget that thanks to Metal Talk we had gems such as Loopy's column (http://metaltalk.net/columns2016/20164600.php) or Chris Dale's Sarajevo diaries (Part 1: http://www.metaltalk.net/columns/20100821.php; Part 2: http://www.metaltalk.net/columns/20100822.php; Part 3: http://www.metaltalk.net/columns/20100823.php).

The former ended up being the basis of a very interesting book and the latter inspired the documentary and are now part of the Scream for me Sarajevo CD booklet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top