ae

KMCA, now known as KPIA, defended the exploitative contract that NewJeans challenged under HYBE. Instead of taking a step back and acknowledging that there might be something fundamentally wrong with the current system, they're doubling down on the idea that these contracts are fair as they are, and that people are simply misunderstanding or misinterpreting their terms. There's very little willingness to examine whether the system itself needs reform or whether artists, particularly young and underage artists, are actually being adequately protected. And rather than expressing concern over the underlying issues brought to light, they chose to emphasize their displeasure over the public disclosure of the contract's contents, citing the confidentiality obligations between the parties involved. In other words, their focus seemed to be more on the disclosure of the contract than on the concerns that prompted the dispute in the first place. Now, let's put this organization into context. Its former president and current Chairman of the Board, Kim Chang-hwan, was criminally convicted in 2019 of aiding and abetting child abuse by knowingly allowing the abuse of underage members of a boy group in his company, Media Line Entertainment, to continue. He received a sentence of eight months' imprisonment, suspended for two years. The conviction was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court in March 2020. And this is someone who continues to hold a leadership position within the organization representing Korea's popular music industry. Then, in December 2024, KMCA, together with four other industry organizations, issued a joint statement effectively pressuring NewJeans to return to HYBE. They also threatened to boycott or blacklist NewJeans and other artists who might consider leaving their agencies. Rather than acknowledging the possibility that artists might have legitimate reasons to terminate their contracts, they chose to frame artists exercising their rights as a threat to the industry. And it didn't stop there. In February 2025, KMCA also opposed a proposed legislation intended to strengthen protections for underage artists. Do you see the pattern here?? When artists raise concerns about potentially unfair contracts, the response is to defend the existing system. When artists attempt to exercise their contractual rights, the response is to threaten them with industry-wide consequences. And when legislation is proposed to provide better safeguards for underage artists, the industry organization pushes back. At some point you got to stop and ask: Who exactly is this organization representing and protecting? Is it the artists who are the life blood of this industry, including the young people whose careers and lives are shaped by these contracts? Or is it primarily protecting the interests of agencies and the existing industry structure? Because an organization that claims to represent the music industry should also be willing to acknowledge when that industry has problems. Protecting the industry cannot simply mean protecting the companies within it from criticism, accountability, or reform. And if the people representing the industry aren't willing to question a system that leaves artists vulnerable, then perhaps the question we should be asking is whether the industry has become so accustomed to a system of abuse and exploitation that it no longer sees what's wrong with it.