GME3: Upping the Ante on Safety, Court Leaves Laws in Limbo, & AI Tunes Hit Sour Notes

In this week’s GME3 we’re looking at the CCSA’s call for a national strategy to address gambling-related harms due to increased online betting, the US Supreme Court’s indecision on Texas and Florida laws affecting social media content moderation, and major record labels suing AI startups for using copyrighted music without permission. Read the full stories here!

Gambling

Upping the Ante on Safety

The Canada Centre on Substance Use and Addiction (CCSA) has called on the government to introduce a national strategy to address gambling-related harms. 

In a report that the CCSA published last month, the Centre argues that the increased access to legalized igaming and sports betting platforms has led to an increase in gambling-related issues. Specifically, the CCSA argues that: 

• Early evidence suggests increased participation has been associated with increased gambling harms among the population and among vulnerable demographics;

• Types of betting made available to the public, such as single-event sports betting, are associated with a greater risk of harm;

• High volumes of advertising normalize gambling, especially in the eyes of youth; and,

• Due to the cost of living crisis and the after-effects of the Covid-19 pandemic, Canadians are more vulnerable to gambling harm.

Being the only Canadian province with a licensed gambling market, Ontario was the main focus of the report. The CCSA points out that $35.5 billion was wagered online in the first year of legal activity, and argues that the increased amount “cannot be explained simply by a movement of people from illegal to legal online gambling”. However, it is important to note that the CCSA report does not explicitly provide evidence that there has been a rise in gambling-related issues since the Ontario market was created in 2022, only that more people are gambling now that it’s legal to do so.

The CCSA made the following recommendations to limit the impact of recent changes on gambling harm rates:

1. This strategy must set national standards governing the promotion and provision of gambling products.

2. A national body must avoid perceived conflicts of interest that may arise from provincial or industry-formed proposals or initiatives.

3. It must address inadequate funding for harm prevention and reduction initiatives and research across crown provinces.

4. This must also ensure systematic monitoring of gambling harms, meaning its social and economic costs could be tracked.

5. The strategy must also allow for a concerted drive to increase awareness of gambling harms among health and social service professionals and the public.

They also argue that the framework could be expanded to esports betting, lootboxes, and other gambling-adjacent activities that are focused on a younger audience. While CCSA has not demonstrated that there is, in fact, a surge in gambling-related issues, implementing these recommendations would work to mitigate gambling-related harms and ensure the well-being of Canadians in the face of an expanding legal gambling market.

Media

Court Leaves Laws in Limbo

The Supreme Court of the United States has declined to rule on the case related to laws passed in Texas and Florida that barred online platforms from removing posts that express opinions, such as political content.

Originally enacted in 2021, these laws aimed to “keep social media platforms from discriminating against conservatives.” In a contradictory move, the 5th Circuit found the Texas law to be constitutionally valid, while the 11th Circuit ruled that the Florida law was unconstitutional. As a result of this split, the issue was elevated to the Supreme Court to decide once and for all.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court was unable to rule one way or another in this case. In writing her opinion on the matter, Justice Elena Kagan (as well as Justices John Roberts, Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett) wrote that neither of the appeals courts that elevated these cases to the Supreme Court had properly addressed the First Amendment issues raised. Kagan went on to chastise the 5th Circuit specifically, arguing that, in ruling on the side of Texas, they showed a “serious misunderstanding of First Amendment precedent and principle.”

Kagan argues that these state laws could have a much broader impact than initially intended. For instance, she writes, “it’s not clear to what extent, if at all, [the laws] affect social-media giants’ other services, like direct messaging, or what they have to say about other platforms and functions.” Judges also considered whether the laws could be applied to platforms that aren’t even social media, such as Uber, Venmo, or Etsy.

As a result, the future of these state laws remains uncertain as they return to the lower courts for further review, leaving open questions about their broader implications and potential impact on various digital platforms beyond social media.

Entertainment

AI Tunes Hit Sour Notes

Some of the world’s largest record labels have launched complaints against two startups using generative AI to automate the music-making process. 

On Monday, The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) filed lawsuits against Suno AI and Uncharted Labs Inc., the developer of Udio AI, on behalf of Universal Music, Warner Music Group, and Sony Music Entertainment. The suits allege that the companies are training their AI models on massive amounts of copyrighted sound recordings from the labels. The RIAA is seeking as much as $150,000.00 per work infringed, potentially amounting to billions of dollars overall.

While maintaining that generative AI software could have a place in the music industry in the future, Mitch Glazier, chief executive officer of the RIAA, argues that it can only happen if developers are willing to work with record labels. He went on to say that “unlicensed services like Suno and Udio that claim it’s ‘fair’ to copy an artist’s life’s work and exploit it for their own profit without consent or pay set back the promise of genuinely innovative AI for us all.”

This case highlights the critical balance needed between technological innovation and respecting intellectual property rights in the music industry. The outcome will likely set important precedents for how generative AI can be ethically and legally integrated into creative fields, ensuring that both technological advancement and artists’ rights are safeguarded.