text: different rightsholders and authors. Managing opt-outs for so many different interests within 
  one book may get overly complicated very fast. 
  
  In any event, creating an opt-out system will need some ways of authenticating whether 
  someone has the relevant authority to make choices about inclusion of a work. 
  
  *Who would get to use the books data commons? For what?*
  
  A commons might be made publicly available to all, as has been done with datasets like The 
  Pile. Another possible design choice is to restrict access only to authorized users and to 
  enforce particular responsibilities or obligations in return for authorization. Three particular 
  dimensions of permitted uses and users came up in our discussions: 
  
  •**Deﬁning and ensuring acceptable and ethical use:**Participants discussed to what 
  extent restrictions should be put on use of the resource. In the case of HathiTrust, 
  acceptable use is implicitly ensured by limiting access to researchers from member 
  institutions; other forms of “gated access” are possible, allowing access only to 
  certain types of users and for certain uses. 
   One can imagine more ﬁne-grained 
  mechanisms, based on a review of the purpose for which datasets are used. This 
  imagined resource could become a useful lever to demand responsible development 
  and use of AI; alongside “sticks” like legal penalties, this would be a “carrot” that 
  could incentivize good behavior. At the same time, drawing the lines around, let alone 
  enforcing, “good behavior” would constitute a signiﬁcant challenge. 
  
  39 