So the Directive proposed different levels of protection for databases, depending on whether they were prosaic or creative. Given the need to protect vested rights, however, the scheme as implemented in the UK, has created a differential set of rights of unnecessary, almost unworkable complexI ity. Th Databases which by reason of the selection or arrangement of their contents, constitute the author's own intellectual creation are protected by ordinary copyright for the author's life-plus-70 years. (13 Databases which are not such intellectual creations have a 15-year sui generis right against copying, but new 15-year terms (without limit) may run afresh each time the database is quantitatively or qualitatively updated substantially (14) Pre-1998 databases that were protected by copyright in countries with low thresholds of originality(e.g, the United Kingdom and Ireland) may continue with that protection Database-like works that do not technically qualify as a database under the Directives definition, may(or may not)be protected by copyright as compilations under ordinary unharmonised national copyright principles. (15) A single database may comprise some or all of the above classes of database, and thus different parts will be differently protected These protections are on top of the copyrights that may exist in the contents of the database or in the computer programs that drive it, even though these elements may be mechanically integrated into a database. The functionally integrated and seamless product that comprises a database is not matched by similarly integrated and seamless legal protection like this owners and users to agree their own terms of engagement; the alternative of deciphering the terms fixed by the law may be just too costly to be worth the effort. It is at least arguable, however, that the complexity here is as much attributable to faulty law-making tout simple as to faulty civilian-inspired law-making Let us return to Proposition No. I set out earlier in Part I, namely, that The UKs common-law based copyright law is becoming eclipsed by, or subsumed under, a mass (or mess)of European Directives based on civilian theories of copyright That European Directives have reshaped highly significant areas of UK copyright law over the last decade is incontrovertible. That process has not yet ended. Many of the gaps left by the Directives on computer programs(1991), rental rights(1992), satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission (1993), term and related rights (1993), and databases(1996)will be filled when the final iterationSo the Directive proposed different levels of protection for databases, depending on whether they were prosaic or creative. Given the need to protect vested rights, however, the scheme as implemented in the UK, has created a differential set of rights of unnecessary, almost unworkable, complexity. Thus: - Databases which 'by reason of the selection or arrangement of their contents, constitute the author's own intellectual creation' are protected by ordinary copyright for the author's life-plus-70 years.(13) - Databases which are not such 'intellectual creations' have a 15-year sui generis right against copying, but new 15-year terms (without limit) may run afresh each time the database is quantitatively or qualitatively updated substantially.(14) - Pre-1998 databases that were protected by copyright in countries with low thresholds of originality (e.g., the United Kingdom and Ireland) may continue with that protection. - Database-like works that do not technically qualify as a 'database' under the Directive's definition, may (or may not) be protected by copyright as compilations under ordinary unharmonised national copyright principles.(15) - A single database may comprise some or all of the above classes of database, and thus different parts will be differently protected. - These protections are on top of the copyrights that may exist in the contents of the database or in the computer programs that drive it, even though these elements may be mechanically integrated into a database. The functionally integrated and seamless product that comprises a database is not matched by similarly integrated and seamless legal protection. A 'scheme' like this is hardly an improvement on the pre-Directive situation. At best, it encourages owners and users to agree their own terms of engagement; the alternative of deciphering the terms fixed by the law may be just too costly to be worth the effort. It is at least arguable, however, that the complexity here is as much attributable to faulty law-making tout simple as to faulty civilian-inspired law-making. III Let us return to Proposition No. 1 set out earlier in Part I, namely, that: The UK's common-law based copyright law is becoming eclipsed by, or subsumed under, a mass (or mess) of European Directives based on civilian theories of copyright. That European Directives have reshaped highly significant areas of UK copyright law over the last decade is incontrovertible. That process has not yet ended. Many of the gaps left by the Directives on computer programs (1991), rental rights (1992), satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission (1993), term and related rights (1993), and databases (1996) will be filled when the final iteration