At 08:58 PM 01/30/2005, Darcy James Argue wrote: >Well, what you are effectively saying here is that you support the >workers' right to fight to preserve their jobs -- provided they doesn't >actually succeed.
Hmm. Not quite. What I think I said in one of my earlier posts is that I don't think the labor argument *alone* is necessarily justification for artificial limits on the market, not that artificial limits are never justified.
>Your ice-hauler example is also loaded and misleading. The American >Federation of Musicians is not petitioning the US government to ban the >sale and manufacture of the Virtual Orchestra Machine.
My ice example didn't actually say anything about the government either -- or about banning the sale and manufacture of refrigerators, just limiting it. But I'll grant you that it wasn't the best example.
>The manufactures of the VOM are trying to create demand for their >product by promoting it as a way for producers to save costs by cutting >down on the number of musicians they need to hire. The musicians are >trying to limit the demand for this product by boycotting shows where >it is used, and refusing to allow their members to perform alongside >it. There's nothing "artificial" about either position.
As I've said a couple of times now, I agree with you about this. And if AFM succeeds in lowering demand (by raising awareness among audiences through boycotts, for example) and the producers respond by abandoning the VOM, fine. But now we're talking about something more than the fact that producers shouldn't use the VOM because it puts musicians out of work, which is where we started this part of the discussion. The fact that it puts musicians out of work is not in itself sufficient reason for the producers to suspend use of the machine, though it certainly is sufficient reason for AFM to try to lower demand etc.
Aaron.
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
