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

GhostofCain said:
Dennis, obviously. It looks as of he does not want to share any songwriting credits with any of the other alleged songwriters!
Click to expand...
I thought you were the politically correct member here, objecting to name-calling etc.
You, like all of us (@Chudmyster excluded) don't really know the guy, or the situation, but you seem to have a firm opinion already. Terry Wapram is currently in the same band with him btw so I really doubt that would be the case.
Just saying.
 
Last edited:
Why sue them now?? Why not sue them in 1980 when then first album was released?

Also I guess that Prodigal Son was part of the lawsuit, I’m pretty sure Steve said he wrote that song in 1981. It was one of two songs written for Killers. I’m calling bullshit.


Edit: The Willcock issue will go away fast because he is choosing to sue them now instead of a long time ago. But let’s see what happens with Beckett part 2.
 
Collin said:
Why sue them now?? Why not sue them in 1980 when then first album was released?

Also I guess that Prodigal Son was part of the lawsuit, I’m pretty sure Steve said he wrote that song in 1981. It was one of two songs written for Killers. I’m calling bullshit.


Edit: The Willcock issue will go away fast because he is choosing to sue them now instead of a long time ago. But let’s see what happens with Beckett part 2.
Click to expand...


Nothing, because Beckett II is a stupid lawsuit and is only to pump McKay's ego.

I'm more curious about the Willcock part.
 
Magnus said:
I thought you were the politically correct member here, objecting to name-calling etc.
You, like all of us (@Chudmyster excluded) don't really know the guy, or the situation, but you seem to have a firm opinion already. Terry Wapram is currently in the same band with him btw so I really doubt that would be the case.
Just saying.
Click to expand...

#YouBlameMcKay??? :lol:

Fair enough, I do not know Dennis and he might be a lovely human being. What I know is that it has taken him 38 years to notice that he had not been given songwriting credits for his alleged contributions to the early material and that, in spite of the Maiden77 people claiming that other people were involved in the creation of those songs, their names have failed to be included in "The Willcock Works". I wonder why...

I smell a rat.

Just saying.
 
Last edited:
Would any of these fuckers have even bothered to open a lawsuit if Maiden had ended up flopping? I think not. Which is why all of this is stupid and ridiculous! You can't expect a bunch of 20-year-olds who had been writing music for 5 years at the start of their career to track down every single past band member who may or may not have contributed to the songs. Not only is it impossible considering Maiden's formation has once changed nearly every week, but also: no one does that. It's outrageous!
 
How does
willsmith_actor.jpg

cock.png


dare to sue Davey? He has been thrown out of the band because of him once you know...

DISRESPECT-1500x964.jpg
 
Collin said:
Edit: The Willcock issue will go away fast because he is choosing to sue them now instead of a long time ago. But let’s see what happens with Beckett part 2.
Click to expand...
Haven't Beckett already dealt with Maiden using their lyrics in the Hallowed song?
Actually, they've dealt with it twice so far, once, out of court years ago with one member and recently in and out of court with the other member.

Now they want to argue about one more line.
How are Royalties generally negotiated? Is there a word count or line count percentage calculation?
Isn't this regarded as Double or even Triple Jeopardy?
 
Man, Wrathchild's return is going to happen earlier than expected.
 
Last edited:
In all seriousness, though, I honestly don't think "Wrathchild" has a spot in the current setlist. It just doesn't go with any of the themes, it would feel way out of place.
 
So how are these current allegations looking compared to the previous ones? I mean, the evidence was pretty damning against Steve Harris in that first lawsuit, but it seems like this time they are going on absolutely nothing except Dennis Wilcock's word that he wrote six of those songs? Unless I missed something from the article, it just seems like they're just trying to capitalize off of the situation after what happened with the first lawsuit. I could be wrong though, I have a hard time understanding a lot of these legal issues...

Also, I understand if they need to remove Hallowed from the setlist after this, again. But how would that possibly work for Iron Maiden itself? Yes, it is overplayed as all hell, but it's been their main set closer since, well, forever. And they have the huge Eddie for it each time. So if they did have to drop Iron Maiden as a song, what would they possibly put in its place?
 
Demigod_Tyek said:
So how are these current allegations looking compared to the previous ones? I mean, the evidence was pretty damning against Steve Harris in that first lawsuit, but it seems like this time they are going on absolutely nothing except Dennis Wilcock's word that he wrote six of those songs? Unless I missed something from the article, it just seems like they're just trying to capitalize off of the situation after what happened with the first lawsuit. I could be wrong though, I have a hard time understanding a lot of these legal issues...

Also, I understand if they need to remove Hallowed from the setlist after this, again. But how would that possibly work for Iron Maiden itself? Yes, it is overplayed as all hell, but it's been their main set closer since, well, forever. And they have the huge Eddie for it each time. So if they did have to drop Iron Maiden as a song, what would they possibly put in its place?
Click to expand...
Road To Hell (Bruce cover) and move TNOTB to the main set closer spot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top