I found out by accident that Avex copy-protected CDs do indeed install things on your computer:

http://www.experts-exchange.com/Securit … 84430.html

If I had known this earlier, I probably wouldn't have tried ripping before first figuring out how to get around the installation. Now, I'm kind of stuck because I ripped 1 song from a 5-song CD whose entire TOC hadn't correctly been read by EAC, and now, whenever I insert the CD, EAC stays stuck on those erroneous track times and file types (data rather than audio files).

Did anyone else know about this? If so, what's your workaround (aside from using a Mac to rip)? Do you have a suggestion as to how to "reset" what EAC reads off the CD?

Actually even Macs got targeted by such un-CD "copy protection" stuff. In general regardless of the "protection" crap actually used the safest way for both systems would be getting a Linux live CD like Knoppix (it's free), boot from it to rip and save the audio CD and use your usual system again afterward (you'll need two CD/DVD drives though).

Use something like ISO Buster to rip the audio track off the CD, unless the rootkit has already damaged your system.

As annoying as it may be, I haven't seen any indication that the form of copy protection that Avex uses damages the system or leaves it open to attack the way that Sony's XCP did. I've had Avex and EMI CCCDs (both use Cactus Data Shield) install crap onto my system, but I just uninstalled the player, then turned off autorun through the registry, and was able to rip easily with EAC and CDDA extractor.

Of course, I think it may depend on your CD drive. With my old CD drive, turning off autorun had no effect, so I had to keep inserting and ejecting the CD until it came up as a regular audio CD.

If worse comes to worst, you could also try the ol' marker trick, as detailed on wiki:

The second session has been circumvented by another method, which is to either place masking tape around the disc near the edge, or mark a strip next to the edge with permanent marker. Because the bad Table of Contents for the second (data) session of the disk is near the edge, this method can hide the second session, leaving only the first audio session visible.

This brings up an interesting question.  Why do we as consumers even buy products like these when we know the copy protection will likely install rogue software?  Is the content really that compelling, or do we think we can beat the system?

Ignorance.

Any protection can be broken, but every time the music industry crosses the line to fight back, they lose face.

Yes, but current U.S. laws say people should not defeat the copy protection.  Do we break the current law to prove the point?  Some people think that this is a form of civil disobedience, but I think it's the wrong way to fight.  "Do two wrongs make a right?"

I think it's just better to spend the money on something else that isn't such a pain for people to use.  Each to his/her own, I guess.

Um, because we want the actual music? Because Sega and whoever else was stupid enough to use a medium that insulted its' core audience? If you wanted anything Sega put out in 2003-2004 or whatever various releases had it, you had to buy protected audio discs.

Personally, I have no remorse pirating the hell out of those things and it's the only example where I strongly encourage it, because of the amount of idiocy behind them. Yeah, Sonic Heroes, Ollie King and the Sega Rock albums have great music, but none are worth risking potential damage to my computer for or owning a medium that "doesn't work on some CD players"...Better to let someone put their own system at risk and then get the music from them and be done with it (and even then, I've had issues with some audio programs and burning various tracks from copied CD's...Roxio's stuff had a hard time with them. Nero and iTunes are fine though).

I'm a firm believer of the Fair Use Act.  I am free to do whatever I want with my purchased music as long as it's for my own personal use.

There is no Fair Use Act.  Fair use is mentioned in copyright law, but it appears that fair use is examined on a case-by-case basis by the courts.  Fair use does not have a blanket policy.

I agree that people should be able to do whatever they want with their purchases for personal, non-commercial reasons, but that is not codified in the law.

That means the content is compelling enough for someone to break the protection to get the music and accept all risks in doing that (technical and legal).   Yes, it's stupid of record companies to be so protective, but sometimes I think it's better not to deal with them and find something else to spend money on.  "The only way to win is not to play."

So I guess it's a doctrine, and not an act, but it is part of law.  "Fair Use" doesn't seem to cover personal use, but related laws seem to protect personal use including making copies for backup or mixing songs.  I will look for a concrete excerpt of current law to back this up, but I don't know if I'll find it.

Yes, it is part of the law, but it says that "the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years."  So copyright law acknowledges the existence of fair use, but what fair use covers *exactly* is interpreted by the courts on a case-by-case basis.  In past cases, the court seemed to agree that backup copies are permissible, so we have a body of past rulings to work with.  However, such actions are not codified in copyright law, so it's not cut-and-dry.  I couldn't find anything in copyright law that explicitly says something like, "person can make copies of media for the purpose of archiving and personal use in a non-commercial context."  Thus, fair use as people commonly understand it does not exist explicitly.