[ ]      [ ]   [ ]
Log in above to post your comment
Kandinsky
Posted: Feb 07, 2013 - 06:32
 

Excellent album. great songs

MiracleDrug
(Earth)
Posted: May 14, 2012 - 16:16
 

I played the LIVING DAYLIGHTS out of this when I got it...{#Lol}

hippiechick
(topsy turvy land)
Posted: Feb 21, 2012 - 09:23
 

What a great album.

rdo
(Sherwood Forest, Nottinghamshire, England, UK, Europe, Earth, Solar System, Milkyway, Universe, ?)
Posted: Jan 20, 2012 - 15:56
 

 Byronape wrote:

I know that this is an old post, but I thought that it was important enough to 1) give it a bump, 2) give my opinion.

I think copyrighting is important, but there should be a difference between a physical copyright and an artistic copyright.  Artistic copyrights should hold for 10 years then have the option of extending for an additional 10 years but have mandatory lower cost for any licensing fees.

A physical copyright (a new drug, new machine, new chemical) should have a 10 year limit and then become public domain.  Not only would that allow a company to more than recuperate developmental costs and provide a steady stream of income from that product without fear of having it stolen from them somehow, but having the limit would provide an additional motovation to develop new and better products while allowing for lower cost generic or off brand versions of the product to increase it's availability. 

While maybe not a perfect solution, I think it's a fair compromise.

 

Hola Byronape.  Correct me if I am mistaken, but I thought you resided in a different location.  Somewhere in the post-capitalist wasteland.   As to your point - all personal property is theft.  How is it that you do not know that?

kcar
Posted: Oct 17, 2011 - 14:30
 


 bam23 wrote:
Where else would I have ever heard this band? They create a sonic landscape that is distinct. I have picked up several CDs for $2-3 each at the local Amoeba, and they are more than worth it. 
  
 
Asmith wrote:

They are great! Get all of the albums!
 
What I've heard of the Devlins, I've loved. 

I went to an Amoeba records in SF years ago...wow. Nirvana. Nowadays people don't bother to pay for music and wonder why it's harder to find decent artists. 



Byronape
(Snorkeling in the River Styx)
Posted: Aug 15, 2011 - 16:00
 

 MichaelCrawford wrote:
The United States' concept of intellectual property was established by the framers of the Constitution "to promote the useful arts and sciences" by granting a monopoly to inventors and authors for "a limited time". The idea was that by granting a temporary monopoly, creative works would eventually pass into the public domain. But that's not the situation we find ourselves in today, with copyright being extended whenever there is any danger of Steamboat Willie becoming a public domain mouse. I discuss this at more length in my piece Repeal The Copyright Act. To demonstrate that I walk the walk, I have placed my own music under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.5 license.
 
I know that this is an old post, but I thought that it was important enough to 1) give it a bump, 2) give my opinion.

I think copyrighting is important, but there should be a difference between a physical copyright and an artistic copyright.  Artistic copyrights should hold for 10 years then have the option of extending for an additional 10 years but have mandatory lower cost for any licensing fees.

A physical copyright (a new drug, new machine, new chemical) should have a 10 year limit and then become public domain.  Not only would that allow a company to more than recuperate developmental costs and provide a steady stream of income from that product without fear of having it stolen from them somehow, but having the limit would provide an additional motovation to develop new and better products while allowing for lower cost generic or off brand versions of the product to increase it's availability. 

While maybe not a perfect solution, I think it's a fair compromise.


ScottFromWyoming
(Powell)
Posted: Aug 15, 2011 - 15:58
 

 ick wrote:

But they shouldn't be allowed to push their drugs on television broadcasts.  They make enough money overcharging for their products!
 
Not sure why this song attracts random political threads but hey.
 
I agree that TV ads for obscure diseases nobody has has led to not much that's good. But the ads were finally allowed after we demanded to be shown the information we needed to make informed choices. That is, we suspected collusion between doctors and big pharma because they wouldn't even let us know about our choices. Doc says "take this stuff" and we had nothing to support or refute our suspicion that Doc was on the Eli Lilly payroll. We thought TV ads would help that problem. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but any problem that exists is not the fault of drug companies. Note that I am not a fan of drug co or of TV advertising, just pointing out that we should be careful what we wish for. Also, we should read some magazines once in a while instead of getting our health info from a 30 second weepy story told by former actresses. 

ick
(...out of the primordial ooze)
Posted: Jul 15, 2011 - 07:05
 

 Daveinbawlmer wrote:
Its not only music, why should a drug company invest huge quantities of money on developing a cholesterol med or blood pressure med if its going to be open for anyone to copy?
 
But they shouldn't be allowed to push their drugs on television broadcasts.  They make enough money overcharging for their products!


Asmith
Posted: Apr 11, 2011 - 09:47
 

 bam23 wrote:
Where else would I have ever heard this band? They create a sonic landscape that is distinct. I have picked up several CDs for $2-3 each at the local Amoeba, and they are more than worth it. 
 
They are great! Get all of the albums!


bam23
(Berkeley)
Posted: Mar 10, 2011 - 21:27
 

Where else would I have ever heard this band? They create a sonic landscape that is distinct. I have picked up several CDs for $2-3 each at the local Amoeba, and they are more than worth it. 

hopper99
(Germany)
Posted: Feb 07, 2011 - 13:23
 

{#Sleep}{#Sleep}

Asmith
Posted: Sep 02, 2010 - 08:20
 

More Doves please.............Love this song


jagdriver
(Tunin' in from the aptly-named Grass Valley, CA)
Posted: Mar 13, 2009 - 15:53
 

 bdblinux wrote:
Doves rule.
 



camatcba
Posted: Feb 12, 2009 - 11:43
 

{#Motor}

SuperGratos
Posted: Dec 27, 2008 - 01:33
 

Love this song ; its like flying far over the clouds

jagdriver
(Tunin' in from the aptly-named Grass Valley, CA)
Posted: Nov 25, 2008 - 11:11
 

 Yesnil wrote:
I love you Doves.
 
Me too.


vit
Posted: Aug 08, 2008 - 12:13
 

liser wrote:
I thought he was singing in Yiddish for a minute - lots of juicy "...ch"s in there...



2 words: Zombie Lips


liser
(on the green turtle)
Posted: Jun 02, 2008 - 08:52
 

I thought he was singing in Yiddish for a minute - lots of juicy "...ch"s in there...
That_SOB
(The Dark Side of the Tune)
Posted: May 04, 2008 - 07:53
 

MichaelCrawford wrote:
The United States' concept of intellectual property was established by the framers of the Constitution "to promote the useful arts and sciences" by granting a monopoly to inventors and authors for "a limited time".

The idea was that by granting a temporary monopoly, creative works would eventually pass into the public domain.

But that's not the situation we find ourselves in today, with copyright being extended whenever there is any danger of Steamboat Willie becoming a public domain mouse.

I discuss this at more length in my piece Repeal The Copyright Act.

To demonstrate that I walk the walk, I have placed my own music under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.5 license.


Could it be your either too cheap to go through the copyright process or could it be your music sucks ...
Bootlegging is theft-------- Period.
mwstennis
(Austin, TX)
Posted: Feb 15, 2008 - 15:49
 

billbangert wrote:
The Doves are the one band that I haven't seen that I really really want to. They are supposedly working on a new album and will tour next year. I really hope i get to see them.


They are absolutely amazing live. I've seen them in small venues and at music festivals and they always impress.
Yesnil
(Missing New Orleans)
Posted: Feb 15, 2008 - 15:47
 

I love you Doves.
Alpine
(N39d39mW121d30m)
Posted: Jan 30, 2008 - 20:48
 

Jamunca wrote:


You know, that got me to thinking. What would be the last song played on RadioParadise before the lights went out? What would you guys want heard?

Personally, I think they should play whatever tune holds the record for most-played song on here.


It would no doubt be "Embryonic Journey" by Jefferson Airplane.
EssexTex
(Midnight train go'in anywhere)
Posted: Jan 15, 2008 - 04:20
 

Class
Jamunca
(Asheville, NC)
Posted: Dec 14, 2007 - 18:42
 

brighthue wrote:

Don't let this be "the last broadcast." Save RP and independent Internet radio. Get the word out regarding the U.S. Copyright Board's decision to set overwhelming rates for "performance" royalties.

(click here)


You know, that got me to thinking. What would be the last song played on RadioParadise before the lights went out? What would you guys want heard?

Personally, I think they should play whatever tune holds the record for most-played song on here.
billbangert
(Cincinnati)
Posted: Dec 14, 2007 - 18:42
 

The Doves are the one band that I haven't seen that I really really want to. They are supposedly working on a new album and will tour next year. I really hope i get to see them.
westslope
(BC coast)
Posted: Nov 26, 2007 - 16:21
 

Not demanding but very pleasant.
EssexTex
(Walking South Congress)
Posted: Sep 27, 2007 - 06:09
 

Unique sound,
bdblinux
Posted: Sep 11, 2007 - 13:45
 

Doves rule.
Rachoh
(Boston)
Posted: Aug 24, 2007 - 11:12
 

BORING
brighthue
(MetroWest, MA)
Posted: Mar 07, 2007 - 00:46
 


Don't let this be "the last broadcast." Save RP and independent Internet radio. Get the word out regarding the U.S. Copyright Board's decision to set overwhelming rates for "performance" royalties.

(click here)
MichaelCrawford
(Vancouver, British Columbia)
Posted: Feb 04, 2007 - 05:04
 

The United States' concept of intellectual property was established by the framers of the Constitution "to promote the useful arts and sciences" by granting a monopoly to inventors and authors for "a limited time".

The idea was that by granting a temporary monopoly, creative works would eventually pass into the public domain.

But that's not the situation we find ourselves in today, with copyright being extended whenever there is any danger of Steamboat Willie becoming a public domain mouse.

I discuss this at more length in my piece Repeal The Copyright Act.

To demonstrate that I walk the walk, I have placed my own music under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.5 license.
Daveinbawlmer
(Bawlmer, Merlin. Hon.)
Posted: Dec 22, 2006 - 11:22
 

Baby_M wrote:


Silly. "Intellectual property" is the reason why artists get paid for their art. If you like the Doves, or Coldplay, or Radiohead, or Steve Earle, or whomever, don't you want to see them be able to make a living? If your kids enjoyed Harry Potter, shouldn't J.K. Rowling be rewarded for that?


Its not only music, why should a drug company invest huge quantities of money on developing a cholesterol med or blood pressure med if its going to be open for anyone to copy?


fredriley
(Nottingham, UK)
Posted: Dec 22, 2006 - 11:19
 

I could have sworn yer man sung "the last vodka and here we are". I certainly felt as if this tedium was giving me a hangover... A two.
lixy
(Sverige)
Posted: Jul 14, 2006 - 14:13
 

Baby_M wrote:


Silly. "Intellectual property" is the reason why artists get paid for their art.


To quote the Sixty Minutes II show of October 24, 2000 about the Dixie Chicks:

"The hard truth of the music business is that selling a million records, or even 17 million, doesn't make you a millionaire. Distributors, record stores, lawyers, accountants, agents, managers - and, of course, the record company - all get a percentage."


And don't even get me started on the patent system!
Long live RP and their support for indie artists.
Mari
(why do all the country girls leave)
Posted: Jun 15, 2006 - 07:17
 

The very last phrase could easily segue into a Daniel Lanois beautifully, in fact I thought it had but Tears for Fears picked it up, nice one Doves!
calray
(Decatur, GA)
Posted: Apr 03, 2006 - 08:43
 

The Doves seem pretty derivative, but i like this song.
Baby_M
(a 100-year old building in downtown Akron, Ohio)
Posted: Feb 03, 2006 - 11:56
 

(8?» wrote:
Intellectual Property is the ultimate enslavement of mankind.


Silly. "Intellectual property" is the reason why artists get paid for their art. If you like the Doves, or Coldplay, or Radiohead, or Steve Earle, or whomever, don't you want to see them be able to make a living? If your kids enjoyed Harry Potter, shouldn't J.K. Rowling be rewarded for that?
newbaby
Posted: Oct 14, 2004 - 08:45
 

love it.......
trekhead
Posted: Oct 06, 2004 - 06:21
 

"...Die Du-va..."

( no 'umlaut!')
Darlington
(Columbia, South Carolina)
Posted: Sep 10, 2004 - 07:34
 

grimlock wrote:
great song. the doves are a great band, great in concert and just well, great.



Exactly
grimlock
Posted: Aug 11, 2004 - 20:42
 

great song. the doves are a great band, great in concert and just well, great.
JokesandJokesandJokes
Posted: Aug 08, 2004 - 13:01
 

PattonFever wrote:
the very beginning of this song sound a whole lot like mr bungle's pink cigarette.


I would tell you to upload some Mr Bungle, but its just not easy listening enough for RP.
PattonFever
(tripoli)
Posted: Jun 01, 2004 - 18:44
 

ad4tise wrote:


Actually the beginning of this song sounds like someone in pain.



err. i don't see how the guitars in the very beginning sound anything like a human, but okay.

rah wrote:


props to whomever mentioned mr. bungle. love them.


me, too. ^_~ - and thanks for the props.
downbylaw
(indianoplace, in)
Posted: Mar 19, 2004 - 11:59
 

this song is pretty nice.

i bought the album a few months ago and it's still in regular rotation. good stuff.
rah
Posted: Feb 11, 2004 - 15:14
 

wow. and i thought this was cold play all this time...


props to whomever mentioned mr. bungle. love them. :D
ad4tise
(Destin, Florida)
Posted: Jan 06, 2004 - 16:09
 

PattonFever wrote:
the very beginning of this song sound a whole lot like mr bungle's pink cigarette.


Actually the beginning of this song sounds like someone in pain.
PattonFever
(tripoli)
Posted: Dec 22, 2003 - 23:49
 

the very beginning of this song sound a whole lot like mr bungle's pink cigarette.
jstevep00
(Lancaster, PA)
Posted: Dec 01, 2003 - 09:35
 

I love this song and this album. I love the sound of unmistakeable longing in the vocals and lyrics.
PattonFever
(tripoli)
Posted: Nov 10, 2003 - 17:20
 

(8?» wrote:


Perhaps they couldn't afford the rights to reproduce those sounds. Someday all speech/sound/ideas will be owned by , and innovation will grind to a halt.

If you think this isn't happening already, I offer the existence of all the industry manufactured "bands" as evidence.

Marketing is replacing creativity, 'cause all that matters at the end of the day is the bottom line.

Intellectual Property is the ultimate enslavement of mankind.

Corporations are steal our culture, repackage it, then sell it back to us in the form of reduced freedom. All they have to do is distract us with shiny cool toys (like DVDs). All we have to do to stop them is pay attention (like broken/copy proof CDs).


i don't mean to quote your entire post, but i couldn't find anything that needed to be chopped out. i wholeheartedly agree with you. thank you for posting that.
DavidCarrico
Posted: Nov 10, 2003 - 17:16