GROSHEIDE f both data base protection and music distribution on-line it seems appropriate devote somewhat more attention to these issues here Databases As far as database protection is concerned the following may be stated: for decades, aal protection should be given to databases has figure prom inently on the agenda of international and national govemmental and non-govermmental bodies 20 Since data bases are prone to full-scale misappropriation, a back of adequate legal protection could have a range of damaging effects on everyday life. Databases are subject to misappropriation because the information contained therein is highly vulnerable. Infomation, by its very nature, is ubiquitous, inexhaustible, and indivisible. As a consequence, the second use of some particular new infomation does not dim inish or exhaust it. Once disclosed to the public information can generally be used, ignoring contractual or tortious liability, without charge and without the da tabase prov iders perm ission orany obligation to reimburse him for his investment. This holds equally true for the off-line as well as the on-line market. Paradoxically, providing protection to one database provider creates a legal barrier for other potentally competing database providers attem pting to enter the market. This barrier is particularly effective in the case of sole source database producers. It becomes clear that the need for protection should be balanced against database industry that are at stake. Equally involved is the public interest in the dissem ination of culture and kwowledge in today's society requiring full access to all types of information. The above state of affairs demands a coherent and firm strategy by the governmental and non-governmental bodies in charge on both a national and international level. It is essential to realize that the legal protection of databases should not be dealt with in isolation, but should be seen as part of the legal protection of intellectual property rights in the Information Society in general Considering that databases have not always fitted within existing legal systems and leavingcontract law aside, there have been three ways in which to offer legal rotection:copyright law, unfa ir competition law, and sui generis law. In 1996, the EU finally adopted the EU Data base Directive. The Directive created a two-tier protection scheme for electronic and non-electronic databases. Member states are required to protect data bases by copyright as intellectual creations, or to provide a novel sui generis right in order to prevent the una uthorized extraction or reutilization of the contents of a database. The difference between the two is that copyright infringement implies copy ing the structure, while the sui generis right infringement implies copy ing the contents themselves, irrespective of their"copyrightability'.The Digital Information by the Use of Shrink-wrap and Clip-wrap Licenses, n F.w. Grosheide, K Boele-Woelki, Molengrafica 1998(Vemande Lelystad 1998) pp. 263-319, L. Guibault, Copyright Limitations and Contract(Kluwer Law International, The Hague, London, Boston 2002) See generally F.w. Grosheide, Database Protecton- The European Way, Washington University Joumal of Law and Pohcy, Vol 8(2002)(forthcoming, broadly discussing the eC Database Directive 96/9GROSHEIDE 216 of both database protection and music distribution on-line it seems appropriate to devote somewhat more attention to these issues here. Databases As far as database protection is concerned the following may be stated: for decades, the question of what legal protection should be given to databases has figured prominently on the agenda of international and national governmental and non-governmental bodies.20 Since databases are prone to full-scale misappropriation, a lack of adequate legal protection could have a range of damaging effects on everyday life. Databases a re subject to misappropriation because the information contained therein is highly vulnerable. Information, by its very nature, is ubiquitous, inexhaustible, and indivisible. As a consequence, the second use of some particular new information does not diminish or exhaust it. Once disclosed to the public, information can generally be used, ignoring contractual or tortious liability, without charge and without the database provider’s permission or any obligation to reimburse him for his investment. This holds equally true for the off-line as well as the on-line market. Paradoxically, providing protection to one database provider creates a legal barrier for other potentially competing database providers attempting to enter the market. This barrier is particula rly effective in the case of sole source database producers. It becomes clear that the need for protection should be balanced against the need for competition. However, it is not only the particular interests of the database industry that are at stake. Equally involved is the public interest in the dissemination of culture and kwowledge in today’s society requiring full access to all types of information. The above state of affairs demands a coherent and firm strategy by the governmental and non-governmental bodies in charge on both a national and international level. It is essential to realize that the legal protection of databases should not be dealt with in isolation, but should be seen as part of the legal protection of intellectual property rights in the Information Society in general. Considering that databases have not always fitted within existing legal systems and leavingcontract law aside, there have been three ways in which to offer legal protection: copyright law, unfair competition law, and sui generis law. In 1996, the EU finally adopted the EU Database Directive. The Directive created a two-tier protection scheme for electronic and non-electronic databases. Member states are required to protect databases by copyright as intellectual creations, or to provide a novel sui generis right in order to prevent the unauthorized extraction or reutilization of the contents of a database. The difference between the two is that copyright infringement implies copying the structure, while the sui generis right infringement implies copying the contents themselves, irrespective of their ‘copyrightability’. The Digital Information by the Use of Shrink-wrap and Clip-wrap Licenses, in F.W. Grosheide, K. Boele-Woelki, Molengrafica 1998 (Vermande Lelystad 1998), pp. 263-319, L. Guibault, Copyright Limitations and Contract (Kluwer Law International, The Hague, London,Boston 2002). 20. See generally F.W. Grosheide, Database Protection – The European Way, Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, Vol. 8 (2002) (forthcoming), broadly discussing the EC Database Directive 96/9