How will this story finally come out?
Is an electronic instrument a valid musical instrument? Or should musicians’ unions be allowed to bully composers of the techno generation into using live musicians when the instrument they compose for happens to be capable of sounding like a live musician?
Is this an unacceptable interference with artistic freedom, or is it unionbusting?
The link doesn’t work 
Music unions are a scam to keep currently working musicians in work. In a true free enterprise system, the guy who can do the gig, gets the gig. I have the same feelings about the current “exporting computer support” thang–if a guy is willing to do the job for 40% less, why shouldn’t he get the gig? Why does a guy named “Jones” have more of a right to a job–and to feed his family–than a guy named Deepak or Chen? If someone is willing to do my job for less (and is as good at it as I am), then good luck dude, I’m looking for work!
NoCoolUserName - and by the way, yours is the first sig I have been quoted in, so clearly I am excited - I appreciate the intent of your sentiment - but it isn’t that easy, nor is your example that clear cut. As a person who worked as a management consultant for one of the largest and best-known firms that is doing HUGE business doing outsourcing, I am hear to tell you that this topic is far more grey than black and white. The technology that enables offshore outsourcing - e.g., the ability to transparently connect call centers to far-flung timezones, or rotate programming work from country to country along with the sun - is nowhere NEAR perfected. While the concept has some merit, Mgmt Consulting firms are 100% pushing this because their last cash cow - eCommerce and web-site development - have dropped off HUGELY during the dot-com bust. Consulting has been hurting profoundly for the past few years - massive, massive layoffs - and most firms are clinging to outsourcing as the Great Consulting Hope and shoving clients that direction by any means necessary. But just like eCommerce, reengineering, mergers and acquisitions and any other flavor of the month business behavior - the vast majority of applications of this approach yield little or no value and often destroy value.
I’m just sayin’, that’s all.
As for the OP - you know I know a lot of professional musicians and am semi-pro myself. I think to deny a move this direction is luddite in nature, and it is pretty inevitable, but I do mourn it - there are some situations where the element of live music adds a little something that simply can’t be replaced via computer.
Buy should that be legislated, and enforceable?
lissener - I hear you. I don’t want inappropriate protections put in place that hamper artists and creativity.
I have no idea what the right answer is - again, it’s a big grey are to me with very little black and white.
Whatever the rules end up being, someone will pervert them to self-serving ends - it is the way of the world. If computer-generated music is limited in application, clearly one can imagine that being mis-used to force techno artists to use musicians when the music doesn’t call for it. If computer-generated music is allowed, one can imagine theatre producers forcing composers to use computer-generated music to save money when the composer might prefer to use live musicians.
I can’t think of a way to keep Mankind from exploiting loopholes for personal gain - the question is which loophole is the relatively smallest?
I seem to recall something like this already being attempted or suggested. Or, at least, theatre musicians voicing their concerns about such an idea.
I didn’t know Mick Foley had such an interest in the music. 
Anyhoo…