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

Forostar said:
You're asking me what I believe, not what the court would do, right?
Click to expand...

No, I literally asked what I wrote there, because I didn't really understand what you meant to say with the double negation in the sentence.

Anyway, we can obviously not find common ground here, and I pretty much said what I have to say.
 
Forostar said:
Darn, I spend a lot of time on that post. I better delete it before Maiden thinks I turn against them.
Click to expand...

No need to. The thing just is, I entirely disagree with the approach of assuming someone is guilty without having proof. It goes fundamentally against my idea of justice. We seem to have irreconcilable opinions on this matter, and therefore I don't know what else I can say about it.

EDIT: Just to be clear, you brought up Paul Day, I don't think I ever mentioned him. I don't see a reason not to believe him, but I never talked about this. I was only ever talking about McKay and Willcock.
 
Do I find it curious that Barry is laying out his legal strategy here? Of course. Let's be honest - it suggests that he is trying to fight this one more in the court of public opinion.
 
Steve Harris supposedly formed IRON MAIDEN. No…he did not form Iron Maiden. As a young, amateur bass player, he joined an existing band when their bass player left. That is the band that became Iron Maiden.
Click to expand...

What?

I read his whole post and I don't see any evidence. Anyone can make up such claims, back it up with truth (because best lie has parts that are true) etc.
 
Black Abyss Babe said:
I've liked Paul Day very much ever since I first read this interview:
http://www.ironmaidencommentary.com...s0_soundhouse&lang=eng&link=albums#interview3

A pity the source is "unknown" but the interview is from 2001. In it he mentions having written some of the lyrics for "Strange World", so he knows about it and is apparently unconcerned. Which may well prove inconvenient for McKay's PR "charm offensive" ...

I would be seriously impressed if Paul Day now reappears, and weighs in on Maiden's side.
Click to expand...

That interview sounded familiar and I now know why. It was on the Iron Maiden Fan Club magazine #64. Mark Snedden, a member of the Fan Club living in Australia, met Paul Day there as the latter had been living downunder since the late 80s and had the chance to ask him a few questions.
 
My understanding is that libel in the UK is much different than it is here or in the USA, so people have to be very cautious.
 
That post is the epitome of "enough said" phrase.

He's in a band for 3 years, writes a shit ton of lyrics, goes away, band signs deal on the back of his work in 2 years time, band makes it worldwide in additional 2 years of time, band becomes iconic, band remains iconic for the 30+ years and now in 2018 he's claiming ownership of the lyrics?

Bullshit.
 
as fans everyone will naturally side with the current line up...That's predictable.

IF former members contributed to the bands legacy than this should be recognised and the appropriate money paid and credits given if due...

That is of course bearing in mind that vexacious or malicious claims are dealt with appropriately, and also mere opportunism and piss taking...

There's also a difference between playing your part in a band that continues without you, leaving you behind and the deliberate avoidance by that band to recognise the contributions of former members....Mistakes happen, shit happens...
The most over rated metal band of all time (imho), Metallica, even acknowledged the contributions of former members on their early work.
 
Is there any proof other than claims from another side? Documents, recordings etc.? At this moment they're just throwing accusations in public without any proof.

If they contributed - credit is needed. But that doesn't change how they approach this subject so I don't see why anyone should respect them. As far as I'm concerned they could send a letter to band management and keep this from the public eye. They after something else. They want to capitalize on the current tour and that's all.

Even if Steve didn't credit them on purpose this doesn't change a thing about that they go public just to promote themselves with this lawsuit after waiting for over 30 years. And for that, they don't deserve any respect.
 
LooseCannon said:
My understanding is that libel in the UK is much different than it is here or in the USA, so people have to be very cautious.
Click to expand...
Libel AND Contempt of Court. Things have been a bit more lax since Twitter flaming became a thing, but I'm still surprised at McKay's very public attempts to influence a legal matter via public opinion. If this goes to court, that sort of thing is frowned on, even if it's not being heard by a jury.
 
Meliegree said:
Is there any proof other than claims from another side? Documents, recordings etc.
Click to expand...

None so far, and recordings aren't a proof by themselves. I simply fail to see how McKay can pull this off.

I've been in this kind of a situation, I came to play guitar for a band, the singer told me they have this song they play and that it's his. I play it the way I played back then. Happens to be that my buddy who was former guitarist actually wrote the song and he plays it differently, like he showed me after revealing the fact. It was definitely his song, I needed no proof after that. But it's all a word of mouth. No documentation, no legally binding contracts, just a bunch of kids and ideas. It would be impossible to prove in court that it was his song 40 years after.
 
I’m guessing McKay is going public like he has whilst maiden are on tour, AGAIN, in an attempt to bring the good name of maiden into disrepute. He’s been clever enough that everything he’s said he can’t be sued on but he’s hoping the band cave and give him a payout before they start to worry about any mud sticking.

This recent stuff is all a big PR stunt for money. Think about it. To use an example how many people automatically think Michael Jackson is a paedophilie? He was never convicted in a court but those that sued him caused enough of a media stink to put a seed of doubt in people’s minds. It didn’t help when he paid out on a couple of claims to avoid court. This is why Maiden need to stand up in court and not cave into this PR stunt and just pay up to make it go away. If they pay up this time I bet you McKay has several others lined up to dip into maidens pockets long after Dennis Willcock. I bet thunderstick and Paul Day are waiting in the wings along with a few other members who spent a brief time in the band.

Look even if Dennis did write SOME lyrics he never cared about them for 34 years so why all of a sudden does he care now? Theirs no way he played as big a part in maidens history as McKay is making out but maybe he did chuck in the odd line of lyrics here and there. When your in a pub band playing the same few songs over and over for years of course they are gonna change slightly, especially if your band has a revolving door of members which maiden seemed to have back in the day. That doesn’t mean every person who change one line of lyrics or altered a solo slightly deserves a credit and millions of pounds years later!!!!
 
In the end, if Dennis has proof that he wrote the song, by all means, pay him the fifty quid that a line in Charlotte the Harlot is worth. I'm perfectly fine with that. The timing does seem weird to me, but the timing of the Beckett thing also seemed weird - and there can be no doubt that the Beckett people had legitimate claims to those lines. It's entirely possible that Dennis, in his drunken inability to remember the words, added something to the band that he otherwise almost destroyed. Good for him, pay him a little money, and send him on his way. But yeah, I'll believe the proof when I see it.
 
Why are people citing the length of time? The Procol Harum case shines a little light on how this sort of case might go if it ends up in court. Those events were in the late 60's & Fisher filed his lawsuit in 2005 (~38 years). There are "no time limits to copyright claims under English law"...
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
Why are people citing the length of time? The Procol Harum case shines a little light on how this sort of case might go if it ends up in court. Those events were in the late 60's & Fisher filed his lawsuit in 2005 (~38 years). There are "no time limits to copyright claims under English law"...
Click to expand...
No one is saying that he can't file copyright claims. It's just strange that he's doing it now, in public. That shows something about his intentions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top