Five Major Music Industry Associations Joint Press Conference

[Choi Kwang-ho / Secretary General, Korea Music Content Association]

Hello. I am Choi Kwang-ho from the Korea Music Content Association.

Today, I would like to discuss something that many people knew but perhaps didn’t fully understand—the story of entertainment agencies, or record producers, who have led the pop music industry. I will also share the industry’s perspective on sustainable development of the pop music industry.

Theme: “Please Keep Your Promises.”

The most important element that moves and connects the countless stakeholders in our industry is promises. If we work to ensure that promises within the industry are kept, our industry can achieve sustainable development.

Now, I would like to propose what the value of promises in our industry truly is, and present a code of conduct to uphold that value. This is the so-called ‘Three Act Code’—three ECT codes of conduct.

First, Connect. Second, Respect. Third, Protect. I will now explain each of these three codes of conduct.

First, Connect.

The foundation of Korea’s pop music industry is the exclusive contract between agencies and artists. An exclusive contract is like a three-legged race where the agency and artist tie their legs together and promise to run together. The relationship between an agency and an artist is not that of employer and employee. It is a partnership between a corporate entity (the agency) and an individual business operator (the artist). They must share the joy of success, the pace of growth, and the failures and obstacles together. Through this relationship, the pop music business begins.

Therefore, the exclusive contract that connects these two parties is the core foundation—and I might even say the entirety—of the pop music industry. However, this bond of exclusive contracts is now under threat in our industry.

There are unethical rival agencies, music producers employed by agencies, and massive capital interests behind them who are instigating artists to untie that bond. There are even fandoms claiming it’s better for artists to leave their agencies, and government policies focused solely on regulating agencies. All of this is combining to shrink the standing of agencies, which serve as the midwives of the music industry.

These issues of tampering or exclusive contract violations are no longer limited to a few cases we know of—they are spreading like an epidemic from major agencies to indie labels. Looking at a complaint filed with our association by a small agency, when an unknown artist gained recognition through a broadcast program, a rival agency attempted to poach the artist with financial incentives and opportunities. What makes it even harder for the agency is that the artist’s fan club is criticizing the agency’s capabilities and pressuring the artist to leave the current agency, or constantly demanding that the agency transfer the artist to another company. Fan clubs say, “It’s only natural for my artist to move to a more promising agency for a better future.” The fans’ goodwill toward artists is turning into hostility toward agencies. Such situations are breaking the most important promise in our industry—exclusive contracts.

Agencies and their employees are no longer in a position of power. During the artist’s unknown days, they bear heavy management responsibilities and must defend against numerous regulations. Yet when their artists succeed, there is a growing atmosphere of anxiety about contract termination. Sixteen years have passed since the Standard Exclusive Contract, focused on protecting entertainers, was established after the Jang Ja-yeon incident in 2009. Since the late 2010s, Korea’s music industry has succeeded globally and evolved into an entirely new industry. It is now time to seriously consider revising the standard exclusive contract to fit the times and enable sustainable industry development.

Second, Respect.

What you’re seeing on screen now is the average annual salary of employees at a newly established agency. Those words allegedly said by an agency manager earning 50 million won annually to a popular artist earning billions—”Ignore her.” The artist’s side insists they heard it and demands an apology. The manager claims they never said such a thing. Two conflicting claims. And then came the proposal of amendments to the Pop Culture and Arts Industry Development Act and the Labor Standards Act—the so-called “NewJeans Hanni Act.”

We still don’t know the truth of this incident. And I don’t want to take sides and argue who is at fault. The reason is probably because we are all doing our best in our respective positions in the name of music, and we are all members and partners of this industry.

Fame without guilt, obscurity with guilt. We are seeing an accelerating phenomenon where claims made by those with high recognition and large fandoms are accepted as fact, and such claims become established facts before any court judgment. Therefore, we must ask ourselves whether we truly tried to listen fairly to both parties’ claims. If we had the opportunity to hear the claims of a famous artist, we should also have heard the opinion of the unnamed manager who is the other party in this case.

Moreover, recently there have been increasing protests by some fandoms demanding the dismissal and discipline of agency employees. Personal information of agency employees is being disclosed online without consent, and cyberbullying targeting their families continues unabated. Who will protect the human rights of agency employees?

When examining workplace harassment of artists, we should also look at the hardships of agency employees who must endure indiscriminate verbal abuse and personal attacks from some extreme fans simply because they are in conflict with an artist. We must not forget that when an artist leaves an agency without notice, there are numerous employees facing job loss and uncertainty about their future. It is time to reflect on who the truly vulnerable are in this industry and whether we are ready to listen to them. Fair distribution of consideration and respect within the industry is a shortcut to making our pop music industry sustainable.

Third, Protect (Industry Protection).

As I have repeatedly said today, I am not here to determine who is right and who is wrong. The question of industry protection is whether there is a solution to disputes and conflicts. In fact, disputes and conflicts can occur in any industry. That is very natural. The only way to protect the industry amid disputes and conflicts is to keep promises—which is none other than complying with laws and regulations.

The National Assembly and the government should work on establishing fair systems within the industry, and in disputes, we must patiently await the judiciary’s judgment based on the systems we agreed upon in advance. No one can finalize contract termination before a legal judgment, and after the court’s solemn judgment, we must all accept the outcome regardless of what it is. This is the only way to protect our industry—the way to save our industry amid disputes and conflicts.

Also, when the National Assembly and government establish industry-related policies, we hope that correct policy decisions will be made based on objective data and facts. It is true that due to longstanding prejudices, the negative image of the approximately 2,200 record production companies that have been responsible for Korean pop music over the past decades has only deepened. Until now, agencies have had extremely limited opportunities to voice their opinions in legislation or government policy-making, and excessive regulations targeting only agencies have been churned out based on fragmented facts and incidents exposed in the media, leading to hasty generalizations about the entire industry.

Rather, the pop music industry has now become a tilted playing field. If we continue to stand by while agencies are in crisis, we will face the collapse of the pop music industry. I ask for encouragement and support from everyone so that the blood, sweat, and tears of approximately 2,200 record production companies can be recognized as industrial warriors of Korea.

Finally, I would like to conclude my presentation by restating the theme of today’s event.

“For the sustainable development of Korean pop music, please keep your promises.”

Thank you.

[Moderator]

Thank you. Next, we will hold a panel discussion with the five music organizations and external panelists. First, while we set up the venue until 11:15, please enjoy the coffee and light refreshments prepared outside the entrance. We will see you shortly.

Yes, since we finished a bit earlier than expected, we will set up until 11:00 and start at 11:00.

[Moderator]

Yes, we will begin. Six people have joined us for the panel discussion. Let me introduce the moderator and panelists.

First, Secretary General Choi Kwang-ho of the Korea Music Content Association will lead today’s panel discussion. Next is CEO Choi Jae-woo of F&F Entertainment. Director Kim Myung-soo of the Korea Entertainment Producer’s Association. Director Lee Nam-kyung of the Korea Management Federation. Director Shin Jong-gil of the Record Label Industry Association of Korea. And finally, reporter Seo Byung-ki of Herald Business.

Yes, the panel discussion, including Q&A, will continue until noon. Secretary General Choi Kwang-ho, please proceed with the discussion.

[Secretary General Choi Kwang-ho]

Yes. We will now begin the discussion. So, well… I think each field will speak about our key agendas. First, CEO Choi Jae-woo of F&F Entertainment—as I understand, you are currently producing two idol groups, and in a sense, you could be considered a small-to-medium idol agency. Could you share some of the difficulties you’ve experienced and your thoughts on running an entertainment agency and record production business?

[CEO Choi Jae-woo]

Hello. I am Choi Jae-woo from F&F Entertainment. Among today’s themes, I am here to speak as a producer in the idol industry regarding the topic of ‘Beyond Prejudice,’ and about the prejudices faced by small-to-medium agencies and especially new agencies preparing to enter the K-POP business.

I have been active in various capacities in the record business, including album planning, production, marketing, distribution, and as a creator. Recently, since establishing F&F Entertainment, I have produced two audition programs—a girl group called ‘UNIS’ and a new boy idol group called ‘AHOF’ that we’re preparing. In doing so, I’ve noticed that the reality of the K-POP industry I used to see has changed significantly, and there have been many changes in a short time, but the public is not aware of this. When I look at policy decisions, I often feel that they are being made based on prejudices and with a focus on large agencies.

Especially with idols, we talk about so-called 3rd generation, 4th generation, and now 5th generation idols—the cycle of these generational changes has become very short. It’s now down to 2-3 years, which means that the lifespan of idol groups after debut has shortened accordingly. Because of this, all agencies are making tremendous efforts to quickly create and produce hit idol groups in a short period. This involves human effort and network building, but also financial investment.

When creating idols, we cast trainees through various methods—direct casting, hosting auditions, or planning programs like we do—and among them, we provide training, accommodation, and meals to many trainees. For overseas trainees, we help them live in Korea by handling visa issues and health insurance. I’m mentioning this because I want you to know that idol production carries risk from the very beginning.

Generally, we go through the process of planning, producing, and marketing albums. Today, among the many journalists present, about one-third of you are people I’ve greeted or interviewed, or who have written press releases or good feature articles about programs or idols we’ve produced. This shows how producers deal with broadcast stations, media outlets, various communities, platforms, fan platforms, and as K-POP has expanded globally due to K-culture, the scope of marketing where we need to meet, negotiate, and extract many things has greatly expanded. We are putting in a lot of time and effort, but there’s also a prejudice that because K-POP business is doing well, all operators must be doing well. Just like getting grades in school from 1st to 100th place, we also receive report cards. I want to say that not all producers are working in an abundant environment.

And speaking on behalf of myself and all small-to-medium agency operators and those who want to create K-POP in the future—while the words “Party A” and “Party B” exist in contracts, I don’t think I’ve ever worked as Party A. I’ve talked a lot about the hardships trainees face and the complaints artists have. I think determining who is Party A and who is Party B is a later issue and shouldn’t even be necessary. I have the ambition to lead this K-POP business from an equal footing, producing K-POP and conducting business in an environment free of prejudice. I believe all producers feel the same way. I would appreciate it if you could watch over and support us without such prejudices. Thank you.

[Secretary General Choi Kwang-ho]

As a follow-up question, there’s a lot of upfront cost before debut, isn’t there? Usually, training rookies involves various processes—I understand that idol artists go through sufficient training before debuting. How much cost is typically involved before debut?

[CEO Choi Jae-woo]

Costs start from the casting process before debut. Whether we’re planning auditions, traveling to K-POP-related academies nationwide or worldwide, participating in integrated auditions, or planning audition programs—costs arise from the casting stage in various situations. For training, we obviously provide dance and choreography training, vocal training, rap, and also training for performing in front of cameras. Since it’s K-POP and the world is watching, we also provide foreign language classes. Additionally, there are beauty-related procedures or surgeries to enhance appearance. Considering the album planning process up to the first album—even for small-to-medium agencies—I understand that they spend anywhere from at least 1 billion won to up to 10 billion won.

[Secretary General Choi Kwang-ho]

Thank you for your response. Next, Director Kim Myung-soo from the Korea Entertainment Producer’s Association will speak about institutional improvements.

[Director Kim Myung-soo]

Hello, I am Kim Myung-soo, Director of the Korea Entertainment Producer’s Association. I have prepared a script, so let me read and speak from it.

Under our Copyright Act, a record producer is defined as “a person who plans and takes overall responsibility for the first production of a record.” Today’s event is an opportunity for record producers responsible for the music industry to propose several suggestions regarding the difficulties we face in the field and improvements.

First, the problem of tampering in the rookie market can no longer be overlooked. Unlike in the past, the current rookie development market is one where at least several billion won is invested per project, but considering that more than 90% of the market consists of small-to-medium agencies, the risk burden for record producers is substantial. Therefore, the issue of tampering must be protected at an industrial level from the perspective of protecting small-to-medium enterprises and the rookie development market. Accordingly, we request that explicit legal grounds be established to suit the reality of the pop culture industry, such as the obligation to refrain from competition and competition prohibition periods as stipulated in the Commercial Act—for example, prohibiting competition for the remaining period of the exclusive contract even if the relationship reaches the point of breakdown due to tampering issues, thereby making tampering attempts meaningless during the exclusive contract period. In particular, we request the establishment of institutional measures including strengthening new registration requirements for pop culture and arts planning businesses to directly restrict market entry by parties primarily responsible for tampering or newly established companies funded by such parties.

Along with this, the current 40-hour online training course, which was revised to lower entry barriers for new pop culture and arts planning business operators, cannot realistically be expected to achieve the same effect as the original requirement of at least 2 years of industry experience in just 40 hours of online training. Therefore, we propose establishing a separate qualification examination on related laws and systems after completing a professional training course of at least 3 months for pop culture and arts planning business operators.

Next, as the K-POP market has expanded to the global market, overseas activities by entertainers who have not completed military service are increasing. Multiple complaints have been filed about the complexity of required documents and administrative procedures for applying for overseas travel permits and recommendation letters. We request simplification of required documents and forms and streamlining of the dual administrative procedures, similar to the administrative integration system of ‘Government 24.’ In particular, we request the careful consideration of the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism and the Military Manpower Administration so that the current enlistment deferral system for entertainers aged 28 and above, implemented through revision of the Military Service Act directive, can be industrially effective.

Next, as a proposal for sports and cultural events to coexist through efficient venue management of sports facilities—it is truly embarrassing that Seoul, the home of K-POP in Korea, does not have a suitable venue for hosting various large-scale concerts and festivals. Therefore, we propose that for large-scale sports facilities owned and operated by the government and local governments, a “Culture Week” be designated—for example, 2 weeks each in the first and second half of the year per sports facility, during periods with relatively abundant sunlight and favorable conditions for lawn growth and outdoor performances—with fixed annual timing. This would minimize the burden on sports facilities for hosting cultural events and user complaints, while enabling more than 20 large-scale cultural events per year centered on Seoul and the metropolitan area. Furthermore, such Culture Weeks can be utilized as an annual cultural festival representing Korea, greatly contributing to the influx of foreign tourists visiting for performances, reducing the enormous budget for additional concert hall construction, and serving as a good alternative that can be achieved through administrative agreement alone between the government and local governments.

Next, I propose the introduction of a “Pop Culture Artist Registration System.” As the Pop Culture and Arts Planning Business Registration System currently in effect since the enactment of the Pop Culture and Arts Industry Development Act in 2013 has become positively and properly established industrially, we expect that additionally implementing a Pop Culture Artist Registration System would contribute to systematic policy development and support for pop culture artists, improving job stability through system improvements, and furthermore expanding positive influence by pop culture artists, reducing social controversies, and reducing disputes between pop culture artists and agencies—thereby expanding transparency and fairness in the industry.

Finally, industry experts currently have a serious sense of crisis regarding the sustainability of the Korean Wave. We earnestly request that the National Assembly and government step forward to deeply consider the future of the pop culture industry and turn the crisis into an opportunity through innovative promotion policies. Thank you.

[Secretary General Choi Kwang-ho]

Thank you for the discussion. Next, Director Lee Nam-kyung of the Korea Management Federation will speak about tampering and the standard exclusive contract. As the journalists here are well aware, it seems quite difficult to find effective measures to define tampering and establish institutional mechanisms to prevent it. Could you please explain how the system should be reformed in this regard?

[Director Lee Nam-kyung]

Yes, hello. I am Lee Nam-kyung, Director of the Korea Management Federation. Well, I’ll be speaking on perhaps the most difficult topic today.

It’s true that the issue of the standard exclusive contract and the resulting tampering issue have become significant social issues. To address this, we first need to look at the contents of the standard exclusive contract. I believe the journalists here are all well aware of how the standard exclusive contract came to be established.

The problem is that although more than 10 years have already passed since the standard exclusive contract was established, and although the social environment and work conditions have changed significantly, the basic perception of this standard exclusive contract has remained unchanged. In fact, the standard exclusive contract—since I can’t show it on the screen behind me, I’ll explain—is a contract maintained through the principle of good faith between the two parties. Of course, the same goes for other contracts. Therefore, contracts are made based on mutual trust that “this contract will be kept,” and all subsequent derivative contracts proceed based on this contract.

There are things you need to look at. The question is how binding the standard exclusive contract really is. Setting aside other contents, the biggest problem with the binding nature of the standard exclusive contract is that, due to the original purpose for which the contract was created, all duties and responsibilities are currently concentrated on agencies. Despite the fact that the current environment has changed and the relationship between entertainers and agencies is no longer a vertical relationship but a collaborative partnership, as briefly mentioned earlier, the standard exclusive contract places most of the responsibility for its binding force on agencies.

Looking at Articles 5 and 6 of the standard exclusive contract—”Rights and Obligations of the Company” and “Rights and Obligations of the Entertainer”—as you all know, there are really only three obligations that entertainers have under the standard exclusive contract. First, “to provide pop culture and arts services faithfully, demonstrating their talents and abilities to the fullest.” Second, “not to engage in acts that damage their dignity as pop culture artists or defame the reputation or credit of the planning business operator.” And third, “not to enter into contracts with third parties that are identical or similar to the terms of this contract, thereby nullifying the effectiveness of the contract or unfairly infringing on contractual interests.”

Do you think these three things can objectively measure and establish responsibility? As you know, these three are very difficult to quantitatively evaluate and hold accountable for violations. Therefore, most exclusive contract disputes are structured where the company defends and the artist attacks.

Consequently, from the company’s perspective, when exclusive contract disputes arise, there are many more things to prepare from a defensive standpoint. The biggest problem is that there are no adequate measures to cope with or prepare for various problems that arise within this framework. So if we look at the structure of the industry… if you look at the structure of the industry, as you know, from the moment an agency starts caring for and casting an entertainer, everything is actually structured so that the company’s costs are invested. Therefore, this industry structure operates under the principle of “invest first, recover later.” Similarly, if someone tries to break or violate a contract even at the cost of losses, can the agency really do anything about it?

In that context, yes. In that context, it is now time to study forms of contracts where both parties can cooperate in an equal relationship. Looking at recent trends, including the National Assembly audit and various rulings and incidents, most exclusive contract disputes proceed through “provisional injunctions to suspend exclusive contract effectiveness,” followed by main lawsuits. As I mentioned earlier, under the structure of the standard exclusive contract, I’d like to share my thoughts on provisional injunctions to suspend exclusive contract effectiveness—you journalists may have interviewed many people about this.

In exclusive contract disputes, a provisional injunction to suspend the exclusive contract effectively tells the company, “Don’t do business anymore.” For the entertainer, it guarantees independent activities. In other words, it claims that “from now on, the company will suffer losses, and from now on, the entertainer doesn’t have to suffer losses.” So this judgment itself should not be made based on breakdown of trust. If a judgment causes the company to suffer losses, it should equally cause the entertainer to suffer losses as well—and to prevent both from suffering, the court should lead them to cooperate. This is actually what our judiciary should be doing.

Therefore, what should be considered first in exclusive contract disputes is not the provisional injunction to suspend the exclusive contract, but rather—as you all know—just as divorce proceedings require a 4-week mediation period, creating an environment that allows for mediation considering the characteristics of the entertainment industry, and building that foundation, is actually more important.

So regarding provisional injunctions to suspend exclusive contracts, our judiciary should take a more conservative approach. Korea’s Content Dispute Resolution Committee and various mediation bodies exist. Nevertheless, rather than requiring parties to go through these mediation bodies, cases often go straight to court. It is very important for exclusive contract disputes to be judged so that parties must go through mediation bodies, especially through agencies specialized in content.

Additionally, I’d like to add a word about the so-called “poaching” problem known as tampering. As you all know, the era when agencies could manage every move of entertainers is already over. In other words, entertainers can now have various personal and social contacts. We can’t judge who exactly is involved, but it could be internal stakeholders, external investors, or we don’t know who else. However, under the current exclusive contract, there are far too many ways to circumvent the exclusive contract in such situations, as I mentioned earlier.

This is because the efforts to maintain the exclusive contract are mostly concentrated on the obligated party—the agency. Especially for companies where minimum investment costs have been incurred, they must somehow maintain the contract until revenue is generated. However, entertainers can actually easily shake off the contract and leave at any time. So in such cases, when disputes arise over exclusive contract violations, companies are inevitably at a significant disadvantage.

Therefore, in various recent incidents, simply declaring contract termination and leaving—the current situation—is actually a very dangerous problem. It undermines the trust in exclusive contracts themselves. So, um, unilateral declaration of exclusive contract termination and subsequent independent activities—these are actually very dangerous. It means that the effectiveness of exclusive contracts can be overturned at any time. Therefore, as mentioned in the keynote presentation earlier, such issues need to be resolved within the framework of the law.

In this situation, what we would like to ask is this—I think all industry stakeholders here would agree—we would like to earnestly ask the political sphere and the judiciary. As mentioned earlier, the pop culture and arts industry is not an industry made by any one person. Therefore, please refrain from continuously creating systems that could cause disputes between the two parties, and this is a time when systems for industry promotion are more needed. And as I mentioned earlier, please take a conservative approach to provisional injunction applications for suspension of exclusive contracts. The laws and contracts are being patched up like rags, adding more regulations one by one—please set aside such prejudices, and I hope that through research specialized in the industry, proper systems can be newly integrated and created for sound development. There are actually many more specific details, but setting those aside, I ask all sectors of society to cooperate so that entertainers and agencies can work together harmoniously, maximize synergy, and pursue mutual benefits—which is the very purpose of the exclusive contract. Thank you.

[Secretary General Choi Kwang-ho]

Yes, thank you Director Lee Nam-kyung for the discussion. For reference, as mentioned at the end, there is the Pop Culture and Arts Industry Development Act. If you journalists look at the previous amendments within it, almost all of them were revised in response to some incident, and the revised contents are almost all laws that regulate what we call record producers and planning business operators. They hold us responsible there. In fact, the biggest reason this frame continues is that, as I explained at the beginning, many members of the public think the exclusive contract between an agency and an artist is an employer-employee relationship, and therefore they shouldn’t be treated unfairly. But actually, because those involved are mainly young people, it should be viewed as a ‘partnership.’ Artists are individual business operators. So if they were workers, they should have freedom to change jobs. But they make an agreement to run this business jointly through a partnership, and their respective shares all exist. Because this perspective is missing, regulations have been imposed on agencies—it’s called the “Arts Industry Development Act,” but from our agencies’ perspective, we’re not sure if it’s a development act or a regulation act. So we really hope that those in the media will listen carefully to the realistic stories of our industry so that these parts can have meaningful and positive impacts on the industry. With that, next is Director Shin Jong-gil of the Record Label Industry Association of Korea, representing indie production companies, who will participate in the discussion. As we’ve been talking, we keep mentioning tampering—the meaning is quite ambiguous—and record exclusive contract violations. Are there tampering and such issues in the indie field these days? Let me ask first.

[Director Shin Jong-gil]

Yes, I am Shin Jong-gil, Executive Director of the Record Label Industry Association of Korea, as introduced. Looking back at the question you raised, the word “tampering” itself only emerged in the music sector about 3-4 years ago. Before that, there was no concept of it at all, and many such incidents occurred without anyone knowing it was such an act or that they were being victimized. As the word emerged, the concept developed, and awareness grew that such acts are wrong. Rather than mentioning specific musicians, I experienced such incidents when I was at a small label. I believe such acts need to be sorted out institutionally and through policy.

[Secretary General Choi Kwang-ho]

Yes, understood. Director Shin Jong-gil will also speak about royalty rates. There has been a lot of exposure to the content that record producers take an enormous rate of 48.25% while artists get less than 3.5%. Could you please fact-check this today?

[Director Shin Jong-gil]

Before my presentation, we need to show a graph, so let me ask if we can turn on the prompter in the back. Can we turn on the prompter?

Yes, I’ll begin. For the public to listen to a piece of music, the music goes through creation, production, distribution, and sales processes. Unfinished music is completed at the creation and production stage using practice rooms and recording studios. Completed music is then presented to the public at the distribution and sales stage through distributors, music streaming platforms, and record stores. Between the creation/production and distribution/sales of music, management is needed to release the music, relationships are formed with organizations managing copyrights and neighboring rights, and performances, broadcasts, and videos are utilized to promote music consumption. Thus, music forms relationships with various professions before being presented to the public—this is called the ‘value chain of the music industry.’

In this value chain of the music industry, creators, performers, and producers each play key roles in music IP as copyright holders and neighboring rights holders. The revenue from created and released digital music is distributed according to the ‘Music Copyright Usage Fee Collection Regulations’ set by the government as follows.

What we need to look at here is the production company’s share. For streaming revenue, this 48.25% is commonly misunderstood as being the production company’s share alone. However, this 48.25% share is again divided into various distribution ratios according to mutual contracts with musicians and distributors. To help understanding, I’ve listed the distribution ratios assuming 20% with distributors and 50% with musicians.

In this situation, production companies bear all the risks regarding the success or failure of the music. There’s no need to discuss when it succeeds, but when it fails, they must bear not only financial risks but also—recently—mental risks with the attitude that “everything is the production company’s fault.” Such losses are not well revealed. Discussing the industry without understanding these aspects of the music industry will inevitably lead to one-sided results. Promises for a healthier music industry must start from here. That’s all.

[Secretary General Choi Kwang-ho]

Yes. You spoke briefly earlier, but ultimately, record producers receive 48.25% and then settle and pay royalties according to the exclusive contract. But the way it’s expressed is that record producers get 48.25%—there’s this perception like “the bear does the tricks while someone else takes the money.” Another thing is that the copyright fees, performance fees, session and chorus costs, composition and lyric fees, and other costs like choreography fees when commissioning choreographers are all paid upfront. So as you know, lyricists, composers, choreographers, performers—these people never go into the negative. They first receive payment in the form of service fees, then also take copyrights and neighboring rights. Only the producer and the artist who signed the exclusive contract can take profits after reaching the BEP (break-even point). I think Director Shin Jong-gil explained that the market has evaluated record producers based solely on the one-sided look at those rate numbers, and that this led to images in public perception like “slave contracts” or “worked 7 years but 0 won in royalties”—creating many unjust situations. Thank you for the discussion. Finally, reporter Seo Byung-ki from Herald Business will share his thoughts.

[Reporter Seo Byung-ki]

Today we’re dealing with various issues related to disputes between entertainers and producers—tampering, exclusive contracts, and the producer rate that Director Shin just mentioned—all of these are interconnected. But what I want to say first is this: I participated in several public hearings when creating the Pop Culture and Arts Industry Development Act after the Jang Ja-yeon incident in 2009, when the standard contract was being developed. With Professor Hwang Seung-heum and others—it was established then and revised several times, but actually the most important provision is about ‘contract violation.’ What constitutes a contract violation, and does this break the trust relationship between both parties—this is the biggest problem. But because this isn’t described in very specific terms, um, between the two parties—meaning between artists and producers—there’s a structure where, as Director Lee Nam-kyung just mentioned, ‘provisional injunctions to suspend exclusive contracts’ are inevitably overused.

Even in the NewJeans case, NewJeans still has remaining contract period with HYBE. But they’re viewing it as if the contractual trust relationship has broken down and grounds for suspension of the exclusive contract have arisen. They listed several reasons, right? But the perspectives of both sides on this are too different and ambiguous, so they have to take it to court and go to the main lawsuit. The main lawsuit still has quite some time left. During that period, NewJeans—because NewJeans is so famous, their popularity won’t drop immediately—but other groups could see their popularity plummet during that period and their sales could reach nearly zero. That would be a huge negative not only for producers but also for artists. That’s why the statement that this is a partnership relationship and a win-win relationship is made in that context.

So as soon as possible, well… especially in Korea, things only get fixed when they become issues. So first with Jang Ja-yeon came “slave contracts,” then sexual crimes, and gender sensitivity-related provisions were added to the clauses. Then very detailed regulations were created about youth and minor labor. But there seems to be less understanding of how these are being used in the field, how they’re being applied, and what the problems are. For example, from a producer’s perspective, having even one minor in a group makes operation very difficult. Time constraints apply, and in broadcasts and auditions too—when a child appears, after 11 PM they have to put up a standee and can’t be there, right? So imagine how many such constraints apply to groups operating under exclusive contracts. So now… of course, making minors work harshly is wrong and shouldn’t be done, but we need to examine how this is being applied in the field.

And another problem now is that this is an ongoing dispute process. In this process, there’s a lot of “reverse viral” content coming out. For reverse viral content, we can’t know exactly which side threw the source material, but… the damage becomes very large. And investigating this is also very difficult. Calling the relevant artist to take a statement? That’s a very difficult situation. And it’s also difficult for agencies to respond swiftly to this. Actually, a lot of attacks come out in reverse viral content, and we don’t even know if they’re real or not. The current media ecosystem… cyber wreckers create such content. And when journalists see that such articles have news value or high view counts, they sometimes write such articles too. Actually, even with crimes—you should only be punished for the crime you committed. But in this process of cyber wreckers and reverse viral content, a “public sentiment crime” gets added on, and in the frames created by “some netizens”—which is not actually public sentiment created by all citizens but frames created by some netizens—comments pile up and sales drop, downloads decrease, usage falls. This… in a way, reverse viral content has a very similar nature to fake news.

It’s a phenomenon appearing a lot in exclusive contract disputes right now. The thing about fake news is that it’s actually hard to eliminate. Why is it hard to eliminate? Fake news basically hides among real news. Because it’s hidden, it’s not easy to filter out. Now we think “this is fake news,” and the same goes for photo articles—for example, this time, um, the photo synthesized showing Trump kissing Elon Musk’s feet, right? If entertainers are attacked like that, the damage is enormous. But fake news is hard to eliminate because it hides.

Another reason is that fake news—whether video, photo, text, or article—gets very high view counts. In the current internet ecosystem, it’s not easy to escape the temptation of view counts. So for police investigations to respond more swiftly to this—because by the time a judgment comes out later, the image has already declined and the commercial value has dropped enormously, and people can die in the process. There have actually been such cases. In that sense, just as we handle traffic accidents more severely with heavier penalties in front of schools for children, this is also not an issue that can be treated just like general cases. We need to be more alert. For the Korean entertainment industry to develop, both parties—that is, talented artists need to be discovered, but capable producers also need to emerge. In the process of K-POP becoming global, numerous 1st generation producers, whom I call ‘innovators,’ emerged, and then ‘spin-off innovators’—Min Hee-jin could be called a ‘spin-off innovator’—such people need to emerge and engage in global activities. But this is being hindered by the current system and the insufficient legal and institutional framework, with holes everywhere. As a result, the power and momentum of both parties are declining—I find this regrettable. I ask you journalists in the media to please report on these matters with more awareness. Thank you.

[Secretary General Choi Kwang-ho]

Yes, with reporter Seo Byung-ki, we’ve finished what we prepared for the discussion. Now we don’t have much time left, but let’s proceed with Q&A for the journalists. If you have any questions, we will take them now. It would be helpful if you could name the person you’d like to answer.

[Secretary General Choi Kwang-ho]

Yes, Yonhap News. Yes.

[Seo Hyung-seok / Yonhap News TV Reporter]

Hello. I’m Seo Hyung-seok from Yonhap News TV. I have a question about today’s event title. You said ‘Without Record Producers, There Is No K-POP.’ Watching this situation unfold, is former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin a record producer or not? If she is a record producer, that sentence could be interpreted differently from what the NewJeans members are claiming. I’m curious what you think. Also, earlier you seemed to point out the unfairness that during exclusive contract disputes, through provisional injunctions and such, producers suffer losses immediately while artists can freely pursue activities from that point. Is that correct? (Nods) If that’s the case, if you think artists should also suffer losses for fairness, what kind of sanctions do you think should be in place? Could you give an example?

[Secretary General Choi Kwang-ho]

I’ll answer the first question and Director Lee Nam-kyung will address the second. Well… ‘Without Record Producers, There Is No K-POP.’ This is symbolic, a declarative meaning. It’s not meant to subdivide and determine whether Min Hee-jin is a record producer or not. The people who start this business by taking on the PM role, first nurturing artists and doing the management business—those are record producers. So the catchphrase we chose means that if we don’t create an environment where they can conduct business smoothly, ultimately neither artists, choreographers, lyricists, composers, nor anyone else can get started.

[Director Lee Nam-kyung]

Yes. To respond to that point, basically when a provisional injunction to suspend an exclusive contract is filed, from the company’s perspective, the content they’ve invested in up to now disappears. But if it’s granted, from the artist’s perspective, they get the opportunity to act independently. So this provisional injunction itself is inherently a structure that is unconditionally disadvantageous to companies. How can we solve this? Even if the court can decide on suspending the exclusive contract, if the company can no longer generate revenue through this entertainer, why should the entertainer be guaranteed independent activities? Even if the exclusive contract is suspended, entertainers should likewise have restrictions on their activities. Both parties would then suffer damage, so wouldn’t efforts be made to avoid that at least? Looking at these issues, especially the recent trends—when a provisional injunction to suspend an exclusive contract is filed, there are too many cases of immediately transferring to another agency. At minimum, as a safeguard—fine, even independent activities are okay. But if that’s the case, during the provisional injunction to suspend the exclusive contract until the main lawsuit is filed, at least they shouldn’t be able to belong to any other agency. Or if they secretly joined another agency, proper grounds should be established to claim indemnification or compensation for subsequent damages—that would at least minimize the company’s losses and would be an equal sanction for both parties.

[Secretary General Choi Kwang-ho]

Let’s take another question. Yes.

[Kwak Hyun-soo / YTN STAR Reporter]

I’m Kwak Hyun-soo from YTN STAR. Any of you five can answer. The main focus now is on tampering-related matters, but I want to focus on agency executives and employees—specifically, that fandoms are encouraging their favorite artists to transfer to other agencies, or that cyberterrorism is occurring simply because someone is in conflict with an artist. So I’d like to hear specific examples introduced, and regarding protection needed for executives and employees who are victimized, and also what specific measures might follow for sanctions against fandoms.

[Secretary General Choi Kwang-ho]

Let me answer that. We actually gave a lot of thought to what I’m about to say. We debated whether to bring this up or not. What’s clear is that the fandom we know is an indispensable part of K-POP culture, and K-POP industry development would have been impossible without fandoms. So these examples are not referring to fandoms as a whole, but rather some fandoms that engage in such behavior. However, the reason I brought this up today is that fandoms’ voices are heard so powerfully that we tend not to look at the other side very much. So actually, as I mentioned earlier—the fandom’s position that the current agency lacks capability and they should move elsewhere—from a pure fan’s perspective, it’s understandable. Because if our favorite artist can work in a better environment with better activities, that’s better. I used the expression earlier that “fans’ goodwill toward artists inadvertently turns into hostility toward agencies.”

Ultimately, this is what’s most frightening. Even when we identify the problem, it’s really difficult to solve. However, while fandoms are unspecified masses, the direction of demands they make on agencies has intensified. But what I want to say is that the executives and employees working here have jobs. They work here, receive salaries, and support their families. In the course of work, there may be achievements and failures. But beyond evaluation of those, if they’re subjected to various cyberterrorism from unspecified masses of certain fans they don’t know—actually, the fear is enormous while doing work. In reality, there are many cases where people refuse to give statements or don’t want to talk about these issues because they don’t want to get caught up in such problems. Also, since attacks come to their personal information, companies can’t even provide support. They’re salary earners, but hiring a lawyer to respond? That’s realistically impossible. So executives and employees are in a very difficult situation right now. This doesn’t mean executives and employees are doing well and feeling wronged—there may be cases of poor performance in the course of work. But the era has come when they receive such public criticism, and for executives, there are situations where their names are being called out and dismissals are being demanded—this is now becoming normalized. We hope that the government and National Assembly will also care about this together. Right now, well, the only options are defamation lawsuits and such—but proceeding with that is difficult. Actually, the fight is hard for a single employee to carry out, requiring tremendous courage and cost. So realistically, there’s no alternative right now. That’s what I want to say.

[Secretary General Choi Kwang-ho]

Any other questions? Yes.

[Park Se-young / Ilgan Sports Reporter]

Hello, I’m Park Se-young from Ilgan Sports. I’d like to ask about the workplace harassment issue and the National Assembly audit that Hanni attended as a witness. At the time, the Ministry of Employment and Labor concluded that the case didn’t constitute workplace harassment because Hanni didn’t have worker status. Actually, looking at the content in detail is difficult given the ongoing conflict situation, so the Ministry was careful in their assessment. But the ruling was essentially a dismissal based solely on worker status. However, at the National Assembly audit, various lawmakers discussed artist worker status, but there was also discussion that such workplace harassment or ostracism shouldn’t happen in any organization, and that artists should also receive institutional protection in this regard. The Hanni case is an individual case, but I’m curious about the thoughts of the various association officials on this.

[Secretary General Choi Kwang-ho]

This is really a sensitive… difficult topic to answer. But I think for Hanni, who experienced this incident, and for the fandom supporting NewJeans, it’s a heartbreaking matter. Yes. It’s not that I disagree with that sentiment. What I said was this: the claims of both sides are different right now. And I think only the two parties involved can know. But the question of how the industry should recognize and address this problem—as mentioned, it ended as ‘no grounds for charges’ because she wasn’t a worker. Right? Whether the word “ignore her” was said or not wasn’t determined, and who was at fault wasn’t determined either—it just ended because the eligibility requirements weren’t met. And now there are lawmakers attempting additional revisions to the Labor Standards Act to protect against such matters.

Whether laws or regulations are inadequate, or perhaps don’t fit the current reality, or are unfair—we should first accept the judgment that came out under existing regulations and then discuss what the ‘next’ steps should be. This is the most progressive and best way to protect the industry. If we talk about this not just for us but across politics and society—for example, when heinous criminals receive very light sentences, the general public is very angry, right? But what’s important is that this is the current system and law we know. So while it may be emotionally frustrating, for our society to communicate normally and for this industry to achieve sustainable development as mentioned earlier, we need to accept the judgment under existing rules and then move toward improvement where needed. For example, as I mentioned, whether it ended as ‘no grounds for charges’ or however it ended—the manager also has their side of the story. But there hasn’t been an opportunity to hear that side, right? And every word from a popular artist is very serious and powerful. It seems like the other side is being portrayed negatively, so—I’m not opposing the criticism from fandoms or Hanni’s claims—I’m saying there may be such difficulties on the manager’s side too, so let’s look at that as well. Creating situations where we can look at that could be meaningful for creating a healthy, fair industry. Even these words might sound uncomfortable to fans. But the other side definitely exists in our society, so I hope those in the media won’t miss that part. That’s all.

[Secretary General Choi Kwang-ho]

Any additional questions? Oh, yes.

[Kim Seung-hwan / YTN Reporter]

Hello. I’m Kim Seung-hwan from YTN. NewJeans fans also released a statement timed with today’s press conference. They said, ‘You’ve placed a false frame as if NewJeans committed tampering,’ and ‘This is HYBE’s one-sided claim, and for music organizations to accept it one-sidedly is conducting a proxy public opinion war.’ They’ve made this claim before and again today. I’m curious about your position on this, and since tampering is an issue where it’s very difficult to find concrete evidence and remains as allegations, what do you think about the fans’ criticism on this?

[Secretary General Choi Kwang-ho]

First, we are entities that speak about the industry as a whole, and that includes NewJeans, HYBE, and ADOR. We’re entities that must speak about the whole that includes them. So a statement was released—I don’t know its contents—but the important thing is, they couldn’t have known what we would announce until this press conference ended, yet the statement came out before that, so I think there may be misunderstandings. But as you heard the content, our association speaking about HYBE, ADOR, or NewJeans’ positions isn’t appropriate. We talked about principles. So these parts—from fans’ perspective, who may feel extremely wronged and hurt—there may be such feelings. Because that’s in the emotional realm. And fandoms are not a business but a community united by love. They’ve issued a position from a community that is, subjectively speaking, at the extreme of subjectivity. So if I’ve done something uncomfortable enough for fans to issue such an opinion, I apologize. But that wasn’t my intention, and looking at the overall content, it wasn’t just about NewJeans. As I’ve said repeatedly, this industry—while HYBE, ADOR, NewJeans, and Min Hee-jin occupy a very large portion—has many other workers too. Among them, there are areas we haven’t looked at because they’re not popular or minor. I hope the media and our associations will together look after all of that, and one more thing I’d add—it’s not desirable for such controversies to be exposed to the general public anymore. Looking at the statement, there may be talk about ‘who did it first,’ but all such actions are regrettable. We’re also their member companies, but we’re considering the overall industry. Everyone here from all the associations thinks this way.

[Secretary General Choi Kwang-ho]

Any other questions? Yes.

[Lee Min-kyung / Ten Asia Reporter]

Hello, I’m Lee Min-kyung from Hankook Ilbo Ten Asia. While you were speaking, you said ‘recently’ and raised the issue that tampering problems are affecting even the indie scene and occurring very frequently. I’m curious about when ‘recently’ refers to. For example, the incident that brought this issue to the social surface was actually the NewJeans matter. Was this happening before that and only now highlighted, or did more issues arise after that trigger, or did audition programs cause this? I’m curious.

[Secretary General Choi Kwang-ho]

I apologize for using the vague word ‘recently.’ Yes. First, I believe there was the FIFTY FIFTY incident before the NewJeans situation, and before that, whenever there was such controversy, agencies always received criticism. But the turning point—the shift in perception that ‘agencies might actually be in a very difficult situation’—I think was FIFTY FIFTY. Yes. Before that too, there were such takeover attempts, and the nature of entertainment management business is that agencies and artists do business together as partners. The final output created from that is all embodied in the person—the artist. Right? So you’ve seen press conferences saying ‘settlements weren’t made for these reasons,’ but have you ever seen record producers come out and hold press conferences saying ‘we don’t like our artist because of this’? You haven’t. Right? Because from the agency’s perspective, this product is ‘us,’ but when the artist’s mind changes, it becomes ‘me,’ ‘I.’ ‘I can come out and do things’—that’s how it becomes. We keep talking about ‘Party A and Party B,’ but you can see the reality, can’t you? Artists who leave can do something, but the executives and employees left behind just have to stay still—that’s why we discussed this today.

[Reporter Seo Byung-ki]

About tampering earlier—from what I understand, it existed even in the early 2000s. It happened with singers and also with actors. Back then, when a small manager discovered a great rookie, during the contract period, a moneyed manager would come along, and if they went over, they’d even get stock and such—there were such cases from the early 2000s. And the fact that it existed in the indie scene before is because the tampering structure in the indie scene is very simple, right? There are few people involved. The person doing the tampering, the target—it’s a simple structure, so in a way it can happen more easily. And if the person bringing them over has to resolve legal issues with this side and end it, they even cover all the lawsuit costs. But now, cases like NewJeans—the conflict pattern is intertwined with fandoms too. As you know, fandoms today are not the fandoms that just liked things one-sidedly in the past. Fandoms themselves are planners. They’re marketers, strategists. They have very good planning abilities. That came about through the “National Producer” audition era. So when they raise issues like ‘This policy by HYBE’s executives definitely has problems’—it’s very easy to do that. And that needs to be resolved wisely. Rather than going straight to ‘this is a contract violation’ at the first stage, as Director Lee Nam-kyung mentioned—just like there’s a deliberation period of 4 weeks when divorcing—creating such institutions considering the entertainment industry’s characteristics, and building that foundation, is actually more important.

It’s a very good thing that fandoms show such planning ability and think good thoughts about groups they like. It’s a much more advanced form than just being a “fangirl.” That itself is good, but because of that, in collision points with company executives and producers, when that turns into a fighting pattern with attacks and such—ultimately someone gets terrorized—I don’t think anyone wants that direction. So both sides need to find wiser ways to solve problems. Yes.

[Secretary General Choi Kwang-ho]

Let me take just one more last question.

[Pyo Kyung-min / The Korea Times Reporter]

Hello, I’m Pyo Kyung-min from The Korea Times. In the FIFTY FIFTY case you mentioned, public opinion was somewhat divided, but ultimately more public opinion went toward the agency side rather than the entertainer side. As you mentioned, ‘prejudice’ in how the public views agencies still exists. Why do you think this hasn’t changed?

[Secretary General Choi Kwang-ho]

Actually, not just the record producer issue, but our music industry has been victimized quite a bit by ‘hasty generalizations.’ For example, Yoo Seung-jun evaded military service and fled overseas. But actually, in the music industry, there’s no other case of fleeing overseas besides that incident. Yet entertainers as a profession are specially managed under military registration systems, right? So among the characteristics of K-POP and the music industry, the biggest one is publicity. Things appear exaggerated. So for example, looking at the Lee Seung-gi royalty omission case—rather than examining the rights and wrongs of that case—because the case was so socially amplified, I think it created misunderstandings about looking at this industry. There have been some incidents in our society that greatly damaged the image of record producers and agencies. For example, cases of sexual assault against trainees and such—even one such case makes people think the whole industry is like that, creating a kind of optical illusion because the impact is so great. So as I mentioned earlier, when making policy, if there’s a problem in our industry, regulation policies should come in—that’s right. But what’s regrettable is that rather than being enacted based on industry statistics or evidence, the necessity is often felt based on media publicity, and although not everyone does this, some legislators add significance to that publicity and legislate accordingly. Such cases are regrettable. So as I said, I wonder if such mammoth-scale incidents have taken the image of record producers in a negative direction. But as I mentioned, most of the approximately 2,200 record producers are good people with good intentions who want to cowork with artists and work hard. That’s what I want to say.

[Director Lee Nam-kyung]

Let me add a bit to that opinion. Actually, in the relationship between companies and entertainers—as reporter Seo Byung-ki briefly mentioned—from the perspective of fans looking at this, current fans already have many planner-like aspects when looking at idols. So they often judge that they can do better planning than whatever the company does. Therefore, no matter what form the company takes in proceeding, fans are bound to be dissatisfied—that’s one of the structures of this entertainment industry. ‘They could do better than that,’ ‘They could do better than that’—we call that collectively ‘idol,’ and because it’s the idol industry, that part is something companies must somewhat endure, and fans need to understand. But the problem now is that there’s no coordination on this at all. And another reason as mentioned earlier is that when specific incidents occur in this entertainment industry, one characteristic of the entertainment industry is that it exists somewhere between ‘celebrity’ and ‘public figure.’ So these issues often expand from ‘issues of a specific company’ to issues of the entire industry. Because of that, it’s not easy for fans or for perspectives on issues to change easily. Actually, if you think about it, it’s one of certain occupational groups and one part of a specific industry, but these characteristics are not considered at all, and there are prejudices that need to be improved.

[Reporter Seo Byung-ki]

…Fandoms are not like they used to be. Especially large production companies… they should accept to some degree the planning role that fandoms have—not just absorb the commercial aspects but actually accept it. I think about why our country has these problems, why disputes keep arising as the industry industrializes. Based on my experience in 2009, even the 7-year contract referenced the US. There were cases shorter than 7 years and longer in California labor law. Those cases… but actually there are parts that don’t quite fit between that side and us. We investigated everything including Japan’s salary system. Our producers—why do they have to be so obsessed with artists? Whether they invest their own money or get investment from others, they ‘all-in’ on this structure. But the US is not like that structure. The US only receives agency fees, so it’s not at all a structure of ‘let’s die together or live together.’ So we have more need to do these contract relationships well than the US does. But there are regulations that have left such things ambiguous—that’s increasingly revealing itself as a problem. And beyond NewJeans, I have a feeling that provisional injunctions to suspend exclusive contracts will continue to emerge. I have ominous signs. So this—in a way, asking to understand producers’ positions—seems to be what this event is about too, in my view.

Something I recently heard from Lee Soo-man—the reason Korea could go to America as a group was because of this difference in management methods. Because producers here have to share fate with everything, but America is not like that, right? So groups all disappeared in America. The timing worked well for us with BTS and such times—that’s what he said. So the unique characteristics of this production, management, and planning business in our industry need to be better understood. I think so.

[Secretary General Choi Kwang-ho]

Let me take really one last question.

[Jung Jin-young / Kookmin Ilbo Reporter]

Hello, I’m Jung Jin-young from Kookmin Ilbo. Using NewJeans declaring exclusive contract termination as an example, you said in the appeal that this is a method shaking the foundation of K-pop. But NewJeans members are drawing a line saying it’s just a case between a specific agency and artist. But today you frequently said we shouldn’t generalize, yet you’re worried about the NewJeans case spreading throughout the industry—so I’m curious why you’re worried it could be generalized, whether there’s been any change in atmosphere detected in the industry after this press conference that makes you especially concerned.

[Secretary General Choi Kwang-ho]

First, the incident itself is a matter between two parties. It’s not something our association can or should intervene in. It wouldn’t be right to take a position on it. However, from an industrial perspective, we need to think about what impact an incident in our industry will have on the industry. For example, the “Hanni Act” came out, right? But that was just one incident between a manager and an artist. When there’s such an incident, we have no reason to release a statement, but when this becomes legislation, it’s no longer just a problem between the two—it becomes an industry problem. Now, well… NewJeans fandoms are visiting the National Assembly and such. There are many policy supporters there, as I understand. I’m not saying that’s wrong, but because such ripples eventually lead to a structure that affects the industry, from the association’s perspective—if such incidents and histories are facts, and the National Assembly and government are indeed moving because of that—then we need to think about the impact. So while numerous YouTubers and lawyers come out and talk about positions, the association has no position on that. Yes. But such cases hadn’t been attempted before, and when they become precedents, we at the association, which advocates for record producers’ interests, are now considering what impact this will have on our industry. That’s why we’re discussing the ripple effects, and whether it will actually happen or not—we’ll have to wait and see. But one of the association’s responsibilities is to prepare for such industry structure changes and establish policies, so please view it in that context. Fandoms, agencies, and such seem to each see their own world. But for us, even that scale is ‘one of them.’ It’s one part of the entire music industry, right? So please understand that we’re thinking on that level.

[Secretary General Choi Kwang-ho]

Yes. Are there no more questions…oh, yes well I’m sorry. We’ve exceeded the originally scheduled time…

[Yoon Soo-yeon / Korea JoongAng Daily Reporter]

Oh, yes. I’m Yoon Soo-yeon from Korea JoongAng Daily. Following what you just said about the association preparing and establishing policies, the very fact that five organizations have gathered together for this briefing could be seen as quite significant. What countermeasures are you thinking of within the industry regarding tampering and the issues you mentioned going forward, even if the government or National Assembly doesn’t address them?

[Secretary General Choi Kwang-ho]

Well, there are many excellent people besides me among the association directors here, and this isn’t a problem that can be solved by one association’s proposal. Our association chairperson and many member companies sympathize with this issue. But agencies are very cautious about speaking out. So today’s event should be seen as throwing out this topic for discussion. Record agencies have courageously come together to release a position with these organizations. It’s not that we claim everything we’re asserting is correct. Because record producers play a PM-like role that must embrace all stakeholders. We will work so that the industry’s role and function are not lost. Since record producers are connected to all stakeholders, we will work to enable them to coexist and develop this industry together. I believe all the association staff will do their best.

[Secretary General Choi Kwang-ho]

Yes. Thank you so much for taking this long time with us. We will continue to work hard to create an industry structure that is reasonable and meaningful for everyone. Please help us, journalists who came here today. Thank you.