A recent post at the Press Start To Drink blog examined the relationship the games industry has with copyright laws. More so than in some other creative industries, the reactions of game companies to derivative works are widely varied and often unpredictable, ranging anywhere from active support to situations like the Chrono Trigger: Crimson Echoes debacle. Quoting: "... even within the gaming industry, there is a tension between IP holders and fan producers/poachers. Some companies, such as Epic and Square Enix, remain incredibly protective of their Intellectual Property, threatening those that use their creations, even for non-profit, cultural reasons, with legal suits. Other companies, like Valve, seem to, if not embrace, at least tolerate, and perhaps even tacitly encourage this kind of fan engagement with their work. Lessig suggests, 'The opportunity to create and transform becomes weakened in a world in which creation requires permission and creativity must check with a lawyer.' Indeed, the more developers and publishers that take up Valve's position, the more creativity and innovation will emerge out of video game fan communities, already known for their intense fandom and desire to add to, alter, and re-imagine their favorite gaming universes."
Last month we discussed news that Microsoft had banned hundreds of thousands of Xbox users for using modified consoles. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has now pointed to this round of bans as a prime example of the power given to providers of online services through 'Terms of Service' and other usage agreements. "No matter how much we rely on them to get on with our everyday lives, access to online services — like email, social networking sites, and (wait for it) online gaming — can never be guaranteed. ... he who writes the TOS makes the rules, and when it comes to enforcing them, the service provider often behaves as though it is also the judge, jury and executioner. ... While the mass ban provides a useful illustration of their danger, these terms can be found in nearly all TOS agreements for all kinds of services. There have been virtually no legal challenges to these kinds of arbitrary termination clauses, but we imagine this will be a growth area for lawyers."
Pretty certian the is marketing bumpf, Is this not what the AMD-v and intels equivilent (cant remember of the op of my head) allow. Realy wish i kept my sources to refernace but from what i remember the different levels of virtuilisation include emulation where the complete pc is emulated and the OS sees this as a native hardware this is the Slow method and used by older desktop virtual pc applications. Another 2 one of which I have completely forgotten the other uses a set of cpu instructions to allow the hyper-visor to present to a modified OS an interface the OS calls this and is rerouted directly to the hardware, requires different kernals if I recall available on Linux for a while and now in Windows server 2008. This model allows for the level of migration that you would find with the fully emulated version but with close to bare metal performance, most recent opterons and AM2 athalon and phenoms have amd-v while c2d+ as well as some older P4's (some pentium D's) have the intel version. Would love to be corrected but old hat tbh. and if not only because AMD took so long to finalise the amd-v instruction sets from one core gen to the next.