The production of virtual scenes in China is looking for ultra dimensional elements. With the innovation of basic technologies and application products such as VR, AR, and blockchain, human society has entered the Web3.0 era from the PC internet and mobile internet, and has begun to explore the metaverse where the virtual digital world and the real physical world blend together. Although it is difficult to accurately define the metaverse at present, it is generally believed that the metaverse is a new application of various information technologies and a digital comprehensive carrier that integrates various aspects such as economy, life, and governance. Due to its potential huge economic effects, renowned digital enterprises and equity investment companies both domestically and internationally have entered the metaverse, and governments at all levels and regions in China have also carried out industrial layout. However, in the process of the rise and development of the metaverse and related digital industries, a large number of issues that have not yet been addressed by traditional legal norms have emerged. Especially in the interaction layer between the real world and the virtual world, there are many potential conflicts of rights that have not yet been resolved. We need to make forward-looking predictions through theoretical research, clarify the rules of rights allocation in the interaction layer between the virtual world and the real world in advance, and ensure the orderly development of emerging industries through the rule of law. One of the key issues is the definition and configuration of rights in virtual spaces. This article focuses on the relevant legal provisions in China and explores the various forms of space rights and their possible rights allocation rules in the context of the metaverse. It is hoped to provide effective theoretical references for future legislation and justice. Who exactly belongs to the space in the metaverse? In domestic virtual scene production, we look for super dimensional elements_ Hyperdimensional element
The Product Form and Potential Rights Conflict of Metaverse Virtual Space
Accompanied by the development of contemporary society is the emergence of "new property", and the expansion of the form and types of property rights has been referred to by some legal scholars as the "explosion of rights". Property rights have shown a relatively dispersed state. In terms of types, property rights are no longer limited to traditional private law fields such as property rights, creditor's rights, intellectual property rights, etc., but are manifested as a combination of various rights with economic value. Since the emergence of the virtual economy industry with the theme of the metaverse, the various types of rights enjoyed by users in virtual products have become increasingly diverse, and the phenomenon of rights conflicts has gradually emerged. Among them, the essential attribute of the metaverse is a virtual space that blends with the real physical world to varying degrees. In the real world, land and its corresponding physical space are prerequisites for the existence of human society, and therefore, their ownership of rights has always been a must-have for individuals, families, society, cities, and countries. In the metaverse, although "land" and its corresponding "space" are virtual and multidimensional, they are also a prerequisite for the activities of "digital humans" and other digital subjects. Compared with the real physical space, the different products of the meta universe virtual space are not restricted by scarcity, but the determination of their ownership is conducive to encouraging stakeholders to better develop and build the virtual space, which is the institutional prerequisite for the prosperity of the meta universe world. Due to the fact that some metaverse virtual spaces are developed and constructed based on real physical spaces, it is necessary to consider the relationship between them and real physical spaces and the rules for the allocation of rights between them when determining the ownership of virtual spaces.
（1） Two Forms of Virtual Space Products in the Metaverse
At present, virtual space products with metaverse themes mainly include two categories: one is pure virtual land and space operations, which are the mainstream forms in the relevant market at present; The other type is virtual products developed and operated based on real physical space, which are still in the embryonic exploration stage.
The first type of product is based on the concept of virtual space and has no corresponding relationship with real physical space. At present, this type of product has shown a trend of "blowout". For example, Metroverse, a land trading P2E strategy game, has a single game block consisting of 8 × Composed of a grid of 8, there are various types of buildings distributed on the grid, each with a corresponding rarity score. Each block has three scores, namely residential score, commercial score, and industrial score. As of March 2022, the total number of virtual land owners has reached nearly 4000. In addition, products based on virtual land operations such as NFT Worlds and Multiverse VM continue to receive attention from the investment community and traditional enterprises. Even Canadian listed company Tokens.com, through its subsidiary Metaverse Group, has acquired virtual land in NFT World to expand its virtual real estate investment portfolio.
Among these products, it is also worth paying attention to land platform operating companies. For example, The Sandbox's virtual land sales in 2021 have exceeded $350 million. In The Sandbox's virtual world, there are not only NFT native products, but also traditional companies such as Adidas, Warner, Ubisoft, Atari, Gucci, FTX, E-torro, PWC, and Sun Hung Kai Real Estate. Among them, Gucci is developing its own store in The Sandbox, where visitors can watch the latest Gucci and use coupons and lucky draws to form online and offline interactions.
The second type is virtual products developed based on the physical space of the real world, whose spatial structure corresponds to the space of the real physical world, and there is usually a clear interaction and integration. Unlike pure virtual products, virtual space products developed and operated based on real physical spaces are still in their infancy. Of course, this type of product is not stuck in the theoretical research stage, but has real products. On January 26, 2022, Dropp, the Solana ecological social NFT casting platform, announced the completion of a $8 million financing. This is a social NFT casting platform aimed at introducing the metaverse into the real world, consisting of two parts: DROPP LAND and DROPP 3D AR. Among them, DROPP 3D AR is a 3D modeling tool that allows users to model 3D through applications and display it in DROPP 3D space, or as an AR object in real space; DROPP LAND corresponds to the actual geographical location of the real world, aiming to connect the real world with the virtual world of NFT and METRVERSE using geographic positioning technology. DROPP LAND has a total of 96100 pieces, divided into 5 different levels (Superstar Lands, Star Lands, Diamond Lands, Gold Lands, and Silver Lands). Each piece of land contains a certain number of hexagonal grids according to the different levels. The higher the level, the more grids there are (i.e., the better the constructability). According to the guidelines of its white paper, the project has constructed a virtual world for communication and data exchange in the real world, where each virtual item can be connected to an actual physical address. All of its land will be sold monthly for 8 years, and the first batch of virtual plots corresponding to downtown Los Angeles, Santa Monica, and Beverly Hills will be sold out within 15 minutes of going online. Ingress, which was earlier than DROPP LAND, is also a similar product. The game content is combined with the geographical conditions of the real world. The game will confirm the player's position through GPS, AGPS, and Wi Fi information on handheld devices, and players can see the surrounding portals, XM, or items through the game's scanner interface. In the game, there are a large number of portals located around the world, which are associated with actual landmarks and are located in locations that can be visited by the public and can be reached on foot.
Compared to the first type of pure virtual space products, the development process of the second type of virtual space products based on physical space development and operation is slower. The main reason is not due to insufficient market demand, but rather related to the design of ownership rules and potential conflicts of rights and interests. Pure virtual land and space operation products rely on the ownership and transaction rule design of the product itself, as well as the economic system it constructs. They do not directly interact with the physical space of the real world, and in principle do not conflict with other virtual products. Therefore, these products are less subject to traditional legal rules in terms of spatial rights (as long as they are not explicitly violated) and have developed rapidly. On the contrary, virtual space products based on physical space development and utilization inevitably interact with the physical space rights rules in the real world when setting their own rights and transaction rules, thus being subject to the latter to varying degrees.
As we all know, the real world land and its space are scarcity and unique. If the products in virtual space correspond one-to-one with the real world, then there will inevitably be conflicts of rights between virtual space rights holders and existing real space rights holders when realizing product functions in the corresponding physical space. This is a problem that virtual space product developers must face. How can holders of "sold out Los Angeles plots" solve the problem of displaying and interacting with their virtual objects in physical space stores, shopping malls, amusement parks, or streets when opposed by merchants or any other physical space rights holders? Previously, Ingress encountered this type of problem. Due to the lack of permission from the physical world rights holders for its portal settings, many Ingress users frequently visit the real buildings corresponding to the portal and affect residents' lives, which sparked protests against Niantic Labs. Such real or potential conflicts of interest are institutional reasons that affect the effectiveness of the second type of virtual space products, and also greatly hinder the development, purchase, and trading of such products.
Of course, the above two types of virtual space products not only involve the narrow/legal concept of space rights and their planning and legal rules, but also involve the physical sense of spatial planning and legal rules within buildings. In the following text, we will collectively refer to the two types of products as "spaces" and explore them in a broad sense.
（2） Legal Analysis of Potential Conflicts of Rights and Interests in the Interaction Layer between Virtual and Physical Spaces
In China, the three-dimensional utilization of physical space (above or underground space attached to specific land) has gradually emerged in the past two decades with the development of technology. Therefore, in the (civil) legal system, the discussion and definition of physical space rights are also constantly developing and improving. Before the promulgation of the Property Law, there were significant controversies in the Chinese legal theory community regarding whether and how to establish space rights. Some scholars argue that in order to comply with the development of the times and develop and utilize space more effectively, not only should space rights be recognized as a new type of property right, but also space rights should be separated from the right to use construction land and become an independent property right. Article 136 of the original Property Law stipulates that "the right to use construction land can be established separately on the surface, above or underground of the land". Afterwards, the relevant provisions of the Property Law were incorporated into Article 345 of the Civil Code, which made the same provision. According to the provisions of the Civil Code, Chinese law recognizes the existence of space rights and regards them as a land related property right. However, both the previous Property Law and the current Civil Code listed the provisions on space rights in the chapter "Construction Land Use Rights", treating them as a type of construction land use rights, and did not clarify that space rights can exist independently of construction land use rights, as advocated by some scholars. In short, although China's current laws recognize the existence of space rights, their connotation and extension are not clear, and there is still great room for improvement.
Of course, although the current legislation on space rights in China is not yet perfect, there are already laws to follow. Based on the provisions of the Civil Code, there may be two potential conflicts of interest between operating virtual space products and physical space within the scope of China's legal sovereignty.
Firstly, there is a potential conflict between the rights and interests of virtual space and the right to use ordinary construction land. The space pointed to by the ordinary construction land use right refers to the range of space that is naturally radiated based on the use of the construction land, such as buildings, parks, amusement parks, etc. that have been planned and approved, and the space occupied based on the surface downwards and upwards. The owner of these spaces is the owner of the construction land use right, which can be the owner, the lessee permitted by the owner, or the user generated based on other contractual relationships. For example, the owner of a building has ownership of the space inside the building, while tenants in properties such as shops and shopping malls have legal rights to use the space inside the building. At this point, if a virtual space product in the metaverse is the development and operation of the corresponding physical space in reality, the subject who obtains virtual space rights in the product will encounter problems when exercising rights in the corresponding physical space. For example, if someone places virtual decorations or plants in the restaurant space of Disneyland to attract other users to visit or pick plants, the owner of the virtual space will inevitably conflict with the owner of the Disney restaurant's management rights. The aforementioned DROPP company has sold out the Los Angeles city virtual space, and buyers/users will also encounter similar problems after the product is launched. In view of this, the resolution rules for conflicts of rights between virtual space and physical space should be formulated in a forward-looking manner, by clarifying relevant market standards to avoid disorderly development of the market.
Secondly, there is a conflict between virtual space rights and ground/underground space rights. After the establishment of ordinary construction land use rights on the surface, spatial construction land use rights can still be established within the upper and lower spatial ranges of the same piece of land. That is to say, the right to use land for spatial construction cannot represent or encompass the entire system of land spatial rights. In other words, in the evolution and development process of land spatial rights, there may also be associated "air rights", "land rights", and "land development rights". The above ground space and underground space here refer to the space beyond the scope of underground and above ground space that is naturally extended by ordinary construction land use rights. Due to the current lack of widespread utilization of space beyond the surface derived above and below the ground by humans, this part of space utilization is more developed based on public construction needs. Therefore, the phenomenon of transferring this part of space to civil subjects has not yet become widespread, and it is not urgent to resolve the conflicts between the rights and interests of physical space rights and virtual space products. However, if a region/country initiates a metaverse construction and development plan corresponding to that region/country, this potential conflict will quickly evolve into a real legal issue.
Jurisprudential Analysis of the Allocation of Rights in the Metaverse Virtual Space
As mentioned earlier, developing virtual space products for the metaverse based on physical space can lead to direct or potential conflicts between existing physical space rights and newly developed virtual space rights. To avoid such conflicts of rights and interests affecting the development and construction of the metaverse, it is necessary to legally define the rights and interests of virtual space products in the metaverse.
（1） Granting Civil Rights to Metaverse Developers' 'Quasi Property Rights'
The virtual space products of the metaverse are not only based on the development of physical space in the real world, but also have infinite development potential because virtual space can surpass physical space. It is crucial for the construction of metaverse projects and product development to legislate and determine the nature and reasonable rights of virtual space in the legal system. We believe that in order to promote the orderly development of the digital society and related industries, developers of the metaverse should be granted a civil right of "quasi real right".
At present, the ownership of digital content and assets related to the metaverse has attracted increasing attention. However, discussions specifically focused on the ownership of virtual spaces are still relatively rare. In relevant research, some scholars have proposed the idea of constructing "code space rights" as a "new civil right". This viewpoint advocates that "code space" is the operational and organizational space formed by the subject of code space using code technology, while other aspects such as virtual space, cyberspace, network platforms, or computer systems are all manifestations of code technology. Based on this definition, the legal interests protected by the code space right are the freedom of the code space subject to maintain, utilize, manage, and control the code space. In terms of the nature of rights, they mainly belong to the category of property rights in civil rights (excluding the nature of personal rights in the future), and are universal rights, absolute rights, control rights, and quasi real rights. We basically agree with the above viewpoint, which is to view the virtual space of the metaverse as a specific form of code space and grant virtual space developers a new type of civil property rights of "quasi property rights". In legal terms, the rights contained in virtual space can be regarded as an "emerging right". Due to the time lag, limitations, and technical nature of legislation, the scope of statutory rights is greatly limited. In society, some natural rights, customary rights, real rights, and emerging rights are not included in the scope of statutory rights. Among them, the so-called "emerging rights" refer to situations in people's communication behavior that, although without legal basis, can generally, generally, and frequently affect people's qualifications, interests, claims, etc. to be possessed, applied, and disposed of. It is a right that is actually universal and has practical needs, but is not explicitly recognized and protected by law. Of course, considering the stability and logical rigor of the law itself, we still need to cautiously advocate for the types of emerging rights when facing the trend of power expansion. Scholars have proposed three criteria for proving emerging rights. The first criterion is rationality, which means that an emerging right must be proven and meet the conceptual standards of rights, that is, the rationality of being protected. On the one hand, it must reflect legitimate interests, and on the other hand, it must also demonstrate the importance of protecting individual choices. The second criterion is legality, which means that this emerging right should be accommodated by the existing legal system, that is, it can be proven through the method of presumption of rights, which can be derived from the basic rights explicitly stipulated in the law. The third criterion is realism, which is based on policy considerations such as social costs and political reality, and it is possible to achieve it in the present.
With the comprehensive development and application of digital technology, the development and application of metaverse virtual space generally meet the standards of "rationality" and "reality", and this article no longer needs to be proven. So, can virtual space rights meet the "legitimacy" standard and be proven as an emerging right? Our answer is yes. Article 127 of the Civil Code lays the empirical legal foundation for the development of virtual space products: "If the law has provisions for the protection of data and online virtual property, they shall be in accordance with their provisions." Although this legal provision does not clearly define virtual space rights as a civil right, it leaves room for future legislative confirmation of "data and online virtual property" in a clear "no objection" manner. Although it is currently difficult for us to accurately define "virtual space rights", there will not be much controversy in including property rights related to virtual space in the category of "data, network virtual property".
（2） Classify the Property Rights and Obligations of Metaverse Virtual Space
On the premise of characterizing the rights and interests of the metaverse virtual space as "quasi real rights" as a whole, specific rights and obligations should be established for different types of interests. Based on the aforementioned description of the development trend of metaverse virtual space products, we classify metaverse virtual spaces into two categories. One type is purely virtual digital space, whose ownership does not directly intersect with the physical space of the real world. This type of virtual space is similar to the unowned land or space in the real physical world, and only requires property confirmation. The quasi property rights of this type of virtual space are relatively independent. Relatively speaking, another type of virtual space is a digital space that is directly developed and constructed based on real physical space, and its rights are attached to the rights of real physical space.
When setting the second type of virtual space rights attached to physical space, we should not only adhere to the priority of physical space ownership, but also acknowledge the limitations of physical space ownership. Compared to the projection rights of virtual space onto physical space enjoyed by virtual product rights holders, the right of physical space ownership is a pre established right, and its exclusive, absolute, and dominant nature gives it priority over subsequent virtual space rights holders. If we understand the property of users of virtual products in the virtual space as a quasi real right, when the rights projected onto the physical space conflict with the rights of previous property owners, according to the theory of property rights effectiveness, the ranking of their rights effectiveness depends on two dimensions: the nature of the rights and the time of establishment. The virtual space right established later and its "property right nature within a specific project" make it not antagonistic to the prior property owner. The exercise of its rights must respect the declaration of will of the former physical space right owner. Respecting the priority of ownership in physical space is in line with the principle of the rule of law in the metaverse, which we previously proposed as' based on the real physical world '.
But on the other hand, precisely because we are in line with the development of the digital society and the need to develop the metaverse, we also need to recognize the limitations of physical space ownership. After World War II, German courts established the theory of "situational limitations" on the exercise of real estate ownership based on the "principle of social obligation of ownership". Its basic meaning is that every piece of real estate is closely related to its location, condition, geographical environment, scenery, nature, and other factors. Therefore, the owner of real estate must consider these situations when exercising their rights, comply with social obligations arising from the limitations of the situation, and can only obtain profits and dispose of the land in their specific circumstances. A rational person will always make a judgment on how to exercise their rights correctly based on the relationship between the location of their real estate and the public interest. At that time, the restriction theory was developed based on the balance of interests between the entities using physical space. We believe that at the beginning of contemporary virtual space products and gradually becoming an organic component of human society, the traditional theory of ownership restriction should be expanded to cover the necessary restrictions on the exercise of physical space rights holders' rights in the development of virtual space products.
（3） Priority principle of physical space rights
According to the theoretical logic of the ownership setting mentioned above, when developers of metaverse virtual spaces design products based on real physical spaces, if physical space rights holders prohibit or propose certain rights limitation claims, they should respect them. As mentioned above, based on the scarcity and uniqueness of physical space, and the "pre-existing right" status relative to virtual products, the right subject has the exclusiveness and exclusiveness to the right attribute of space subject. Therefore, when virtual space products involve the use of physical space, the physical space rights holder has exclusive rights relative to the virtual space rights holder, and the physical space rights holder can refuse any exercise of rights by the virtual product rights holder in the physical space. For example, the rights holders of shops, residences, amusement parks, etc. can refuse virtual product rights holders to display virtual items, virtual animations, virtual events, etc. in their space, protecting their right to tranquility in their physical space. If the virtual product owner takes corresponding actions without authorization, the physical space owner has the right to exercise rights such as obstruction exclusion and compensation for damages.
Of course, the rights holder of physical space can grant the right to use real space to the virtual product rights holder in a certain time and space range through different licensing forms, and exercise it in an appropriate manner. For example, Disney amusement parks can reach a consensus with virtual product owners to display virtual animations or hold virtual activities within a specific time and space range. The owner of physical space rights can also generalize and authorize the use rights within their physical space to the owner of virtual products, who can freely exercise their rights. At this time, the disposal of space by the obligee of physical space is the establishment of a new usufruct, or a creditor's right similar to the nature of the leasehold, which still has much room for discussion. In addition, unlike the scarcity and uniqueness of physical space, the virtual space functions and space dimensions of different virtual products are different and do not conflict with each other. Even the same virtual product can have different dimensions in the same physical space. Therefore, the authorization of physical space to the virtual product obligee does not exist uniqueness. That is, the same physical space can be authorized to several virtual product rights holders at the same time, and the virtual product project party can design products and interact with users in their respective set spatial dimensions. However, whether there are restrictions on the priority principle of physical space rights holders, such as whether the development and construction of the metaverse based on public interests (such as being commissioned by the Shanghai Municipal Government to develop and construct "metaverse Shanghai") can result in a certain degree of "compulsory expropriation" of physical space rights holders who do not agree to the authorization, is also a topic worth exploring.
Rules and technical solutions for ensuring the implementation of virtual space rights
After preliminarily determining the basic legal principles for the allocation of virtual space rights in the metaverse, this article explores how to design virtual space rights from the perspective of rules and technology, based on the current legal framework in China.
（1） The three-dimensional and digital registration of physical space rights
The development and operation of virtual space products must be based on respecting the rights of physical space rights holders. Therefore, from the perspective of transaction possibility and efficiency, the rights holders and their rights boundaries of physical space should be clear and searchable, and should meet the standards of property rights disclosure. As the legislative consensus reached by various countries, property rights have absolute exclusivity, and their changes must have external identifiable representations in order to be transparent in their legal relationship. As a property right, it inevitably needs to be registered and publicized, in order to play a role in determining and resolving disputes, and defining property rights. Compared to the detectable land surface in the physical world, the space leaving the surface should also have a public display function in order to achieve its independent economic transaction value. As some scholars have pointed out, "In theory, a space that leaves the surface (in the air or on the ground) has independent economic value and has the possibility of exclusivity. It can also demonstrate its independent ownership through the method of real estate publicity - registration.
At present, the land registration and management departments in China still generally adopt a two-dimensional cadastral management model, which is to establish two-dimensional relationships to divide boundaries through flat cadastral surveys. The data is described in terms of scope (square meters, acres, hectares), which cannot comprehensively and intuitively reflect the three-dimensional position and boundaries of construction land use rights. This registration and management method cannot meet the needs of establishing and registering hierarchical use rights for construction land. In practice, the definition of spatial scope is not in the stage of land transfer, but later placed in the approval process of construction planning permits. The scope of underground space covered by the use right of surface construction land is usually limited to the underground space below the surface to above the deepest foundation plane of the building. The depth of the deepest foundation plane is determined by the competent department during the construction design review; The above ground space is limited by the provisions of the construction land use right transfer contract and the height limit of the architectural planning and design.
Obviously, the above-mentioned spatial registration subjects, procedures, and models are difficult to meet the needs of rapidly developing virtual products. In fact, the technological level of modern society is sufficient to support the establishment of a spatial registration system. Before the compilation of the Civil Code, some scholars had proposed that the registration of spatial rights should be within a certain level of administrative division, with the origin set as the measurement benchmark, determining its latitude and longitude, as well as its elevation relative to sea level (i.e. elevation), and thus establishing a three-dimensional coordinate system. For each construction land space use right, a plan can be formed by multiple vertices represented by horizontal horizontal and vertical coordinates, with the elevation difference between the upper and lower limit elevations as the elevation, forming a three-dimensional space to indicate its rightful latitude. For the publicity of each space use right, the corresponding plan and elevation should be recorded in the register, and the corresponding coordinates should be specified to identify the boundaries of the right and identify the space represented by volume covered by the right. In addition to the three-dimensional registration information of physical space rights, the digitization of information is also an important prerequisite for solving the connection of virtual products. Only digitized information can meet the needs of virtual product project parties for retrieval and transaction efficiency.
Therefore, accurate, digital, and three-dimensional registration of physical space rights is an important support for the development of virtual space products. After digitizing the rights status of the physical space, the ownership information is uploaded to the blockchain through rigorous procedures for virtual product project parties to access and check whether the space they plan to develop has rights restrictions, achieving seamless connection between the physical space and the virtual space, allowing virtual space users to achieve smart contract rights agreements with physical space rights holders. In this way, on the one hand, it can solve the problem of rights conflicts, and on the other hand, it can also provide necessary infrastructure for physical commerce in the future metaverse era.
（2） The Anonymization and Passivation of the Chain of Rights in Physical Space
Due to the decentralization and information disclosure characteristics of blockchain technology, while requiring physical space rights holders to have their rights information linked, it also involves issues of privacy and information protection for physical space rights holders. Therefore, on the external disclosure interface of the right, the right holder should be allowed to anonymize the disclosed subject, that is, only to publicly disclose the existence of the right subject in the space, so that the virtual space user can access the right information and conduct standardized transactions, without the need to upload the subject feature information of the right subject to the blockchain for reference.
However, it can be foreseen that the digitization, three-dimensional, and anonymization of physical space rights will take a long time to gradually complete, and the development of the metaverse and its various virtual products is already imminent. If various conditions for physical space are met before opening up the development and operation of virtual space products, it will inevitably seriously restrict the development of the virtual space industry. Therefore, for situations where virtual space products involve the use of physical space, a rule of "default consent, express objection" can be established, which means that when virtual space products are launched, the physical space rights information still needs to be accessed first. However, if there is no registered rights subject, it can be assumed that the corresponding physical space rights subject of the product does not exist, Alternatively, it may be assumed that the physical space owner recognizes the virtual utilization of their space. Of course, during the operation period after the virtual product is launched, unregistered physical space rights holders still have the right to raise objections. Rights holders can upload their rights credentials to the unified space rights confirmation blockchain and require the virtual product project party to access rights information and standard transactions.
The above practices may have a certain impact on the traditional order of property protection. However, as some scholars argue, 'The so-called' property right 'is not a fixed existence with a prior structure, but will constantly generate new rational explanations in different stages of the era under the influence of path dependence principle, solving the' pre existing 'problem in the previous social stage and meeting the new needs of the new era stage'.
（3） Program Design for Virtual Space Utilization Rights to Retrieve Physical Space Data
In the field of property law, the rules for protecting rights are all imprinted with economic rationality. The "Kame framework" in law and economics provides us with a theoretical model to judge the effect of legal interest protection and determine the choice of rules from the perspective of legal relief. Specifically, under the premise of clear ownership of interests, the "prohibition rule" does not allow the transfer of interests, even if both parties to the transaction are completely voluntary; The transfer of benefits under the "property rules" must obtain the consent of the owner and determine the transaction price; The "responsibility rule" refers to the transfer of benefits that can occur if the other party is willing to pay an objectively determined price, regardless of whether the owner agrees or not. We believe that combining the efficient and standardized characteristics of virtual products, in the use of physical space by virtual products, if each spatial right needs to be personalized negotiated with the rights subject to obtain authorization and confirm transaction prices, it is contrary to the characteristics of virtual products. Therefore, the model of "liability rules as the principle and property rules as supplements" can be applied in this conflict resolution rule.
Procedurally, the project party of the virtual space product should first carry out a pre search procedure to retrieve the physical space rights information in the public information before launching its product. If the search shows that there are rights holders, a standardized smart contract will be triggered accordingly. The contract can automatically calculate and pay fees based on the number of user visits to the physical space after the virtual product is launched, or establish a transaction relationship between the virtual product project party and the physical space rights subject according to other standardized and automated contract rules. If the virtual product project party retrieves physical space information but finds no rights holders, they can obtain free use rights of the physical space according to the "default principle". However, during the period of free use of physical space, the holder of physical space rights can file a claim for confirmation through the space rights confirmation system, enter the rights review mode, and the system will make a conclusion on whether the appeal is valid or not based on the confirmation of ownership. If the appeal is established, the system will supplement the digital registration of physical space rights and establish a smart contract between the physical space rights holder and the virtual space product project party according to standardized procedures; If the appeal is not established, it will not change the operational status of the virtual space product.
（4） Judicial adjustments when the infrastructure for conflict resolution is not in place
In the production of domestic virtual scenes, we look for super dimensional elements, and all the conflict resolution rules and program designs mentioned above are based on the premise of the existence of a physical space rights registration system in the real world. Prior to this, due to the impossibility of rights inquiry, the rapid development of virtual space products inevitably led to frequent cases of rights protection similar to Ingress users. In the context where the infrastructure for conflict resolution has not yet been established, leading to the inability to effectively resolve practical disputes, judicial authorities should not mechanically examine such rights conflicts based on the standard of "statutory rights" in such cases, but should appropriately exercise judicial initiative, apply the aforementioned conflict resolution principles, and incorporate emerging rights claims beyond "statutory rights" into the scope of legal protection in a case by case manner, Attempt to establish a standardized transaction model between physical space and virtual space through case guidance using a judicial model. This model of responding to emerging rights demands through judicial protection not only has the characteristics of diversified rights protection basis, dynamic rights protection methods, and attention to individual case justice in rights protection, but also has the function of timely responding to emerging rights, resolving emerging rights conflicts, and ensuring the legal enforceability of emerging rights. From a real economic perspective, this approach can also alleviate the constraints brought by the lagging digital infrastructure on the metaverse industry.