Scott Lanum

SSP 205

Spring 2005

Commentary on Lessig

Thinking of exactly what the future holds in terms of the legal aspect of simulation is indeed a curious subject. There are articles that pertain to the question of the right to play games, as it was customary practice in the 80s for towns to ban arcades in order to “protect” the welfare of all the citizens of the town. They would restrict who could enter and exit these establishments as well as where they could be in the town and what the hours they could be open. It was later deemed that this was a violation of first amendment rights, as the towns never provided sufficient evidence as to why they were taking the actions that were taken, yet one wonders: Just how much can you restrict the right to play? With situations like those presented in the Lessig article, one wonders just how far people are willing to take technology in order to do things that are questionable on the first amendment sense.

When looking at the law field in general, it is interesting to note the grounds on which it meets simulation. Intellectual property law, now taught with the idea of digital property in mind, is what the current generation of lawyers seem to hunger after. Copyright law is easier to break now than it has ever been. Even the process of teaching law has been touched by simulation, with lawyers engaging in multiple “mock trials” and similar social simulations in order to gain the various skills necessary to be efficient lawyers. When the lines between, for instance, real performances and simulated performances become blurred, where does the law fit in? Should one punish those for creating unique, simulated performances of existing performers? Is consent necessary when the original content is completely unique, minus the detail of a setting, person, or other physical representation?