Thursday, January 6, 2011

Korean Fair Trade Commission and the Contract

By now, most fans already heard the news that SM voluntarily modified the contracts of its artists, and the Korean Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) approved those changes, ordered to adjust the contract length of the trainees from 10,13 years to 7 years, and issued a warning. This post is about the details of the modifications, FTC's role in all this, and I will discuss TVXQ's contract with relation to FTC guidelines.

Here's the link to the Official Press Kit from FTC website.

The above file is in HWP (Hangeul - Korean word processor) file format, so unless you have an HWP viewer, you won't be able to see it. There are free viewers available on line, so you can download the program to view the file.

Back to the program...

Because of that news, again, some fans bash SM for using such an "unfair/slave" contract, and they claim the fact FTC "ordered" SM to change the contract proves that the contract is a "slave" contract.

Also, many fansites use biased news articles to spread the news to make the fans believe that FTC forced SM.

Here's an example of such an article:

Here's the title of that article:
"Fair Trade Commission forces SM Entertainment to revise unfair contracts"

If you read the title, you get the impression that the contract was unfair, and FTC forced all the revisions. Also, the article itself left out many crucial details about it, making SM look bad.

Let's look at the press release from the actual source (FTC).

공정거래위원회(위원장 정호열)는 (주)에스엠엔터테인먼트(이하 에스엠)가 연예인 및 연습생과 불공정한 전속계약을 체결한 행위에 대해서는 자진시정을 감안하여 경고조치하고, 자진 시정하면서 연습생과 일률적으로 3년 연장 계약한 행위에 대해서 시정명령을 의결하였음

It says, "Considering the fact that SM modified the contracts of their entertainers and trainees voluntarily, FTC decided to issue a warning on signing unfair contracts, and ordered SM to revise the 3 year extensions applied to all of its trainees."

Ok, it does say unfair contracts, but I'll get to that later.
So in summrary, the above FTC statement says SM voluntarily changed the contracts of its artists, and only the contract for the trainees are ordered to be changed by FTC.

If you read the article from AllKPop, you'd think all the changes made by SM were ordered by FTC, but that's clearly not the case. Everything was changed voluntarily, and only one was ordered to be changed, and that was changing 10-13 years term of the trainees to 7 years.

Here's the news article from a Korean portal site that basically reproduces the FTC's official press release unlike the AllKPop article.

The title of the above article translates to
"FTC recognizes SM's modifications to the exclusive contract"

Sounds quite different than the one from AllKPop, doesn't it? I don't think I've seen any translated articles with titles similar to the above. Most of the articles in English had titles like the one on AllKPop, criticizing SM. If you can read Korean, both types of articles are on the web, so fans can read both, or if you're inclined, you can directly go to the source like I did, but international fans do not have that luxury unless you search for the correct info on your own with google translator which we all know is difficult. Also, the biased articles use phrases like "forcing artists to sign on for a long period of time" to make it sound worse than it actually is even though those words are never used in the FTC press kit.

Now let's look at the details of the changes. What parts of the contract did FTC considered "unfair"?

 * The info in Korean is from the original press release downloaded from the FTC website.
   This proves my advanced skill of using ctrl-c, ctrl-v combination keys

① 장기의 전속계약기간 설정행위
에스엠은 소속 연예인 및 연습생(이하 “연예인 등”)과 전속계약기간을 “계약 체결일로부터 13년” 또는 “데뷔 일로부터 10년”이상으로 정함
에스엠은 전속계약기간을 “데뷔 일로부터 7년”으로 시정함

1. Lengthy exclusive contract term
Before voluntary change: 13 years after signing the contract or 7 years after debut
After voluntary change: 7 years after debut

② 과도한 위약금조항 설정행위 
에스엠은 소속 연예인 등과 전속계약을 체결하면서 “총투자액(홍보비 및 기타 어떤 형태로든 지급되거나 사용된 제반비용)의 3배, 잔여계약기간 동안의 일실이익의 2배를 배상해야”하는 등의 위약금조항을 설정함
에스엠은 “계약해지 당시를 기준으로 직전 2년간의 월 평균 매출액에 계약 잔여기간 개월 수를 곱한 금액(을의 연예활동 기간이 2년 미만인 경우 실제 매출이 발생한 기간의 월 평균 매출액에서 잔여기간 개월 수를 곱한 금액)을 지급”으로 시정함

2. Excessive Breach of Contract

Before voluntary change: 
Three times the invested amount, two times the potential profit for the remainder of the terms
*Blogger's note: The above is identical to TVXQ's contract, and I'll get to that also

After voluntary change: 
Calculated at the time of the termination of the contract, average monthly revenue of previous 2 years multiplied by the remaining number of months (if the Artist's contract period is less than 2 years, average monthly revenue during the period where actual revenue was generated multiplied by the remaining number of months)

③ 일방적인 스케줄조항 설정행위
에스엠은 소속 연예인 등과 전속계약을 체결하면서 “에스엠이 제작하는 인터넷방송에 에스엠의 요구가 있을 경우 언제든지 출연, 에스엠 방송 제작물에 최우선 출연”등의 조항을 설정함
에스엠은 위 조항을 모두 삭제하고, “연예인은 에스엠의 매니지먼트 활동에 대하여 언제든지 자신의 의견을 제시할 수 있고, 필요한 경우 연예활동과 관련된 자료나 서류 등을 열람 또는 복사해 줄 것을 에스엠에 요청할 수 있고, 에스엠이 부당한 요구를 하는 경우 거부할 수 있다”는 조항을 신설함

3. Unilateral Scheduling

Before voluntary change: 
The Artist always needs to make an appearance on the Internet programs produced by SM at the Company's request.
SM produced media productions have priority of appearance.
* Blogger's note: Same as TVXQ's contract, Article 9, clause 4 & 5

After voluntary change: 
Eliminated the original clauses and added the following clauses:
"The Artist can express own opinion about SM's management at any time. The Artist can request SM to provide data or documents to view or copy that are related to the entertainment activities. The Artist has the right to refuse unjust requests by SM." 
* Note: AllKPop's translation of the last clause is incorrect. The Article from AllKPop says: "SM has the right to refuse should the request be unjust." which is totally opposite of my translation. I think anyone can see mine is the correct one. LOL

Phew!!! That took a while, but anyways, here's the summary.

SM changed 3 clauses from the original contract: length of terms, breach of contract penalty and one sided scheduling. The one ordered by FTC for SM to change is regarding trainees. SM tacked on 3 more years on some trainees contract, and FTC ordered to remove it.
So SM only had to change 3 clauses to get it approved.

All 3 clauses are identical to TVXQ's contract, so does that prove SM's wrongdoings?
Not so fast, and here's why.

First, we need to look at the FTC's standard contract.
Here's the link to download the file (again in HWP file format)

The link above has a sample contract drafted by FTC for the purpose of using as a guideline when writing contracts for Entertainers, specifically singers. The website has other sample contracts approved by FTC.

Here's the copy of the section that deals with the contract term. My translations are in blue.

3 (계약기간 Article 3 (Contract duration etc)
계약의 계약기간은
   _______ _______ _______일부터 _______ _______ _______일까지
   ( _______ _______개월 ) 한다. Actual contract dates, from 00/00/00 to 00/00/00

1항에 따른 계약기간이 7년을 초과하여 정해진 경우, 을은 7년이 경과되면 언제든지 계약의 해지를 갑에게 통보할 있고, 갑이 통보를 받은 날로부터 6개월이 경과하면 계약은 종료한다.
2. After surpassing 7 years from the contract term agreed from clause 1, the Artist can notify the company to terminate the contract at any time, and the contract expires 6 months after the notification.
다음 호의 어느 하나에 해당하는 경우에는 2항의 규정에도 불구하고 갑과 을이 별도로 서면으로 합의하는 바에 따라 해지권을 제한할 있다.
 3. If any of the following clauses apply, the right to terminate the contract specified in clause 2 can be modified with separate contract agreement between the Artist and the Company.
  1. 장기의 해외활동을 위해 해외의 매니지먼트 사업자와의 계약체결 계약이행을 위하여 필요한 경우
1.If long term contract is needed for foreign activities, and to sign and fulfill the contract with a foreign management company
  2. 기타 정당한 사유로 장기간 계약이 유지될 필요가 있는 경우
 2. When a longer contract period is needed for other valid reasons
Interesting, right? The FTC's recommended criteria for the duration of terms is as above. It doesn't specify actual limit to the term (you can write a 100 year contract if you wanted to), but it does give the artist right to cancel the contract after 7 years, basically setting the effective term to 7 1/2 years or more. But then, if you look at clause 3.1, the Artist who works overseas can sign a separate contract that limits the right to terminate the contract, effectively making the term limitless. Even for non-overseas artist, the clause 3.2 can be applied to extend the exclusive term for over 7 years.
So according to that, TVXQ's contract definitely complies with the FTC guideline.

Now for the breach of contract penalty, the FTC contract is identical with the SM's new one. Then how about TVXQ's contract? That guideline form FTC was drafted on July 7, 2009. TVXQ's final amendment was on Feb 2009. I couldn't find the old FTC standard contract, but I found a blog about FTC contract, and the author still thinks the newly drafted Termination Penalty is excessive, but the blogger states that at least it's better than the older one, and guess what? The old clause is identical to the TVXQ's!!!
And here's the quote from the blog:
"믈론 계약 위반에 따른 위약벌을 두는 것은 이해할 수 있다. 기존의 총 투자비의 3배나.. 일실이익의 2배 같은 징벌적 위약벌이 아닌 것만 해도 나아진 거라고 볼 수 있을지 모른다"
"Of course it is understandable the need to have a breach of contract penalty. I guess you can say that it is better than the previous clause that pays 3 times the investment, and 2 times the potential profit."
That means that TVXQ's penalty clause was written in compliance to the FTC's guideline since it was written before the new rules were set.
I couldn't find anything about the 3rd clause that was modified, but I'm guessing that complies with the old guidelines too.
So SM was complying with the FTC's guideline when signing deals, but received a "unfair contract" warning from FTC, does that make sense?
It's because of the way Korean FTC works. When a Korean actress committed suicide (for many reasons but "slave" contract was considered to be one of the reason. I don't know the details of her contract so I cannot comment on that), FTC was under the pressure from public to act on it, so a new standard contract was drafted. I believe SM also modified TVXQ's contract during that time using the new FTC guideline.
Then as you all know, this "slave" contract became an issue again because of CJS's lawsuit against SM. On top of that, 120,000 TVXQ fans filed a petition to FTC urging them to resolve the "slave" contract issue. So being under the pressure, FTC had to do something, and that's why the contract was modified
It's just a FTC's face-saving maneuver. SM was complying with the FTC's standard contract all along, but still had to go through the negative publicity. If I were SM, this whole situation would drive me nuts.
I wonder when the FTC will give itself a warning for drafting an "unfair" contract or order to change the contract currently on their own website.
That's why many Korean Entertainment companies are urging FTC or the court to make a standard contract protected by law so they don't have to rewrite their contract every time FTC changes their mind.
Only fault I can find from SM is not writing a contract that's far better than the FTC's, but I'm not sure if you can bash SM for that. After all, it's a business, and it's to be expected for SM to protect its own interest first. BTW, I agree with the blogger above, that the breach of contract clause is still kinda excessive, but FTC approved it, so I guess it's fair until it's unfair. 
Also, note that the distribution of the profits was never modified, so at least the FTC "recognizes" that profit distribution was fair.
So much drama, so much politics...Is your head spinning yet?


  1. you should show your blog to Yunho korean fans,they always said that SME was unfair with his dear Yunho on the past(2007) but as Yunho stay on SME...ohh SME is so fair to them kekeke, so double standar

  2. I think I have to re-read this several times to get everything clear in my head. My kudos goes to you for spending time making the info more easily accessibe.

  3. p.s typical homin as your own idols always use the word "justice" "Im the justice", "the justice will prevail","I have the truth" arrogant like always

  4. I understand it.

    Reputation-save a hoe.

  5. thank you, every thing is more clear now

    i always suspect that those statement from FTC is damage control and attempt to pleas the mass.

  6. Is my head spinning? Dear Precious, my head is splitting T_T

  7. save face indeed!!! thank you for clearing that up. oh. BTW, i heard that Kcassies are really boycotting their album! on the 3rd day, they only sold 3k more or less. :(

  8. @ cinderallaboy10

    Only the special edition CD was released this week, and off line sales are slow on the updates. Standard edition will be released next week, so we'll see what happens. It sold over 30K in 3 days, so that's really not bad.

    KCassies boycotting the album are really JYJ fans who can't let go of TVXQ/Cassie name, so I would just ignore them. Real Cassies support TVXQ, not JYJ.

    I thought JYJ was starting an official fanclub too. I wonder what happened to that?

  9. okay2x. thanks for the info. i hope it will turn out well in the end. :)

    yup i heard that too. i even heard that KCassies are already splitting up. Orion is JYJ's fanclub and Holy Shinki is Homin's fanclub. idk if its true though.

    thank you again again for the translations! hope to see more soon. :)

  10. I stopped taking this blog seriously when you said this is only ur personal view. lol. Don't get me wrong, it's refreshing to read something that contradicts the ordinary and said majority of the news posted in the net and news is biased and lies. I like how you said things like you know what really happens and was so sure about it. Sure you have fairly valid points, but majority of them are based on your interpretation.
    Some points, I thought you quite right and some points I feel that you're being biased. can't blamed you tho. It's personal blog. Anyway, thnks for your view on this case. ^^

  11. @ tadpole-lurve

    Just because it's my personal view, that doesn't necessarily make me wrong either. Even the news articles are all personal opinions.

    At least the data I've provided so far are reliable, and my views are based on accurate info.

    This blog was created to change most fans' personal views formed by inadequate info, or from twisted info. I'm just trying to fix that.

    Like I said many times in my other replies, however you take it is up to you. I don't expect to convince everyone.

  12. so... is this blog only homin biased? its sad... Cause real and true cassies love both... not just homin and not just jyj.. I don't want to assume or something but i just noticed that your sounding like jyj were the bad guys...

    Homin and JYJ have their own reasons and pov that we don't know anything about... we can't even google it... coz everything's twisted...

    I just don't agree with you talking like your a true cassie yet you only side with HOMIN...

    sorry its just sad... coz i love TVXQ/DBSK all 5... meaning i support all 5 of them...

    true cassies should support HOMIN and JYJ equally and not creating blogs that will drag fans to take sides.

  13. @ May

    i didn't c anything bias from the blogger side. She just translate than clarify the misinterpret from other site. And at least when she state her opinion, she said it was her own, not imply to anyone. You should take this as a source of information and have your own point of view of the story.

  14. @ kendalove

    Thank you.

    BTW, are you sure I'm a female? LOL I know majority of the TVXQ fans are, but that does not mean I am. :)

  15. @ May

    You are assuming a lot about me. I never claimed I was a Cassie, and I've mostly presented my opinion based on verifiable facts.

    Also, the definition of the "true Cassie" is yours, and if you believe that then that's your choice.

    I do agree that HoMin and JYJ have their own reasons, and I'm trying to explain what those reasons may be based on all the information that I have access too. Again, whether you believe it or not, or agree with me or not, is up to you. Like kendalove said, I try my best to separate the facts from my opinions when I write as best as I can.

    Some people think blaming SM is ok as long as the members are not directly blamed, but I am going to write a post regarding that as well.

  16. I agree that the 13 year contract is on a grey area so no arguing about that.

    However FTC is just like any other orginazation. It’s made of people so it has it fallacies. Saying that a clause is fair because it matched the old rules would be like excusing the slavery back in America around 16. And 17. ages because the law stated so. The reason why the right of each worker has greater rights in this age than before is because of the revolutions that happened. People who protested with the current situations and Made those who held the power to share it. The people at the top of the chain certainly didn’t give those workers more rights and benefits just because of the good of their hearts.

    What is right is decided by each community. Wasn’t it in Korea that the the government came with rulers on campus and decided which length of hair was acceptable what not. Was that right because the rules said so. I hope you say no. To go back to TVXQ’s case, those changes weren’t made till now because before nobody else with enough impact protested.

    That ‘s why my stance on the “Breach of Contract” clause was unfair. If an artist cannot move from his company despite obvious displeasure and unhappiness, something is not right. What was written in the old rules nullified any chance to cancel the company if the higher ups were against it.

    My opinion on the translatos from Allkpop is not very high and I have no idea why they did not translate the last part of the changes that the FTC decreed. To create wank? Because of shoddy work? Something else?
    But do you agree that the last clause was unfair. Because I think so. Before SM could shove tasks to their workers even if the artist thought it was bad for his health. Even if they thought that this was beyond them. According to Zoom in Super, TVXQ got no sleep between 31st december and 1st January and I was not surprised after I checked their old sheldule (see the last post)

  17. @ Sakura

    Did you even read my posts? I have stated many times basically agreeing with you about the Breach of Contract. I'm not even done with analyzing the contract, and I haven't even posted my conclusion regarding the lawsuit and the contract.

    Read my FTC post, does it say anywhere that the contract is fair because it is approved by FTC?

    My post only proves that the TVXQ contract was following FTC rules all along, and that's it. It just shows blaming SM using FTC ruling is not right.

    Why are you reading more than what I wrote?

    I don't even see the point of your opinion about Allkpop.

    I've worked without any sleep too, and I'm probably not the only one, so what's your point?

    You are trying to prove something with only circumstantial evidences. I've stated my case in my other reply to you.

  18. Hi Precious. You certainly are precious. ^^ I know you don't even need this to be said, but please don't let sloppy readers and/or flames get to you. Your ability to remain calm and rational while others are being incoherent and redundant just ups your credibility, and lowers theirs. =) I commented on an earlier entry, but thank you again for all the hours and hard work you put into this blog.

    I remember once coming across one (and only one) fairly neutral translation of an FTC/SM article awhile back stating super briefly that SM voluntarily submitted their modified contract which was met by approval by the FTC - but that entry was largely ignored on the fansite (possibly DBSKnights? don't remember), where every other SM/contract related entry on the site had 20+ comments blasting SM. I just thought it was funny how people willfully ignore things that don't fit comfortably into their preset mindset and such. *shrugs* Guess everyone's guilty of that to some degree, human nature or whatnot.

  19. Yes, in fact I have read your posts which is the why I am replying here. I don’t think you are reading my post clearly and I suggest you to do it again. Why did I mention the Breach of Contract point expecially? Because it is an unfair clause. Nowhere in my post I was accusing SM for purposly having such an unequal clause but in your post you are stating that it is unfair but alright to have such a part in contracts because the old FTC rules said so.

    I’ve said already that rules are not craved in stones and it is up on each of us to get fairer rights. Just because in the old guidelines, FTC said that such clauses were alright doesn’t mean that things can go on when they turn out not to be so.

    I mentioned Allkpop because you said they did not translate the everything that FTC ruled. What exactly did you read into my words?

    Thanks for your concern about my sleeping time but I’m getting my seven hours of sleep everyday. Don’t worry about me. Writing posts doesn’t take such a long time after all.

    “You are trying to prove something with only circumstantial evidences.”

    I can say the same things to you, you know? What you have gotten in your hands are more than what the average international fan has but from your posts it is clear that you making your opinions as hard facts. To quote myself:

    “That is the thing really. So far, what I have seen here seem to be 50% translating what suits for your side of argument, 10% explaining and 40% inserting opinions. And I am being generous with the percentages. Why inserting opinions but not explaining? Because many reasons on this site are arguable but not facts and thus they are your opinions. Opinions are all good and equally right because both of us know just a fraction of the story. You have more access to news but at the same time you are first colored by the opinions of the reporters and then your bias. (same goes for me)”

    You asked for me to prove were you were misleading in the other post.

    In the beginning you said those words: “The purpose of this blog is to let the fans know the TRUTH, and I am going to present the information I've found with as much explanations and with the sources if available.”

    When most of the time you are posting your opinions. Maybe it is just me, but I see a difference there between.

    Now I believe that I have answered all of you questions. Please answer mine from the last post. Do you think it is right to ask for more rights and why?

  20. hm. only my last post appeared. I believe that you can see the other in you mailbox.

  21. @ Sakura

    I saw your comments duplicated in my spam folder and deleted some of them. Were you copying your comment and posted on different post?

  22. @ Sakura

    I never said the breach of contract clause was fair or SM is ok, I only said you can't bash SM for following FTC's guideline, and if that's where you don't agree, then I'd agree to disagree with you.

    About AllKPop, this blog is not specifically geared towards YOU, but it seems like you are making this personal. There are many fans who visits AllKPop, and not everyone discredits AllKPop like you, and I didn't have to know what you think about that site.

    I never said anything about your sleeping time. My comment wasn't about you, it was about me, and anyone else who had 4 hrs of sleep.

    If the purpose statement I made was the only thing misleading to you, then I can live with it. I guess you can't, but I can't help you there.

    I've already answered about rest of your comment on my other comment.

    Please refrain from copying you comments over other comments because it's easy to get out of hand, and I don't want to answer same thing repeatedly.

  23. You parse the legal aspects of the contract without regard to the ethics of it. Is it right for a person to be solely the commodity of a company.

    You claim this is "truth" and an unbiased review of facts but I see a lot of bias in many of your assertions of what can be construed as right and wrong. If you were truly interested in disseminating fact, perhaps you should just stick to providing fact without your, rather patently, biased perspectives and allow the readers to make their own conclusions.

    Lastly, it seems that there is a lot of forgiveness in the self-interest of business and while it's true that without adequate regulations and enforcement, what business would hurt their own bottom line to allow for increased rights of their employees. This still does not make it an ethically correct decision and it requires either individuals with enough leverage (in this case JYJ) or large masses of people to effect changes in unfair common practices.

  24. @ serratedteeth

    I agree with almost everything you said especially your last paragraph, but this blog is not about business ethics, and I have no intention of getting into it. I already expressed my opinion about the contract where it may be unfair, and that was enough for it as far as I'm concerned.

    I don't think I ever claimed I was not biased, and this is a personal blog after all, so I'm sure the readers expect certain level of bias from my posts.

  25. LOL at my naivete at the use of the word "truth" in your blog title.

    Well, that aside, if you agree that there are unfair business practices that are ethically wrong and that it requires someone with cache and the will to defy the major companies to effect change, then why is your bias so against JYJ?

  26. @ serratedteeth

    Because I have good reasons to believe that the lawsuit was not about changing unfair contract, and I'll get to them in the future.

    I don't see any relation between ethics and truth. I may be biased, but I don't hide that fact, and I try to be honest about what I write, and that's the truth.

  27. head spinning? yes... + stomach growling (want food) + sleepy but can't seem to stop reading your blog XD...

    thank you for clarifying the information, and yes, I read about FTC in Allkpop and you are right about leaving info and incorrect translation and it make me believe SM is evil and unfair. Now (after this and other previous posts you posted), it seem SM is not really a bad guy since they DID follow the standard. Btw, I found your reasoning are reasonable and had good point to it. thumb up to you <3...

    If it not to personal (to you), can I ask your gender? LOLS (I think I remember it) "kendalove" comment confuse me, because s/he referred to you as "he" in previous posts and now s/he said "she". Either that or I remember wrong person XD

  28. Dear Precious,

    Thank you for the information, so many of us are kept in the dark and being fooled by media exaggeration. I don't know how many times fans jump into conclusion by reading the headline of the news, they don't even bother to go through the contents.

    Also they are a lot of fans in denial, proving TVXQ contract is complied with KFTC guidelines is just not acceptable to them. I think thats human nature, no one wants to be proved wrong anyway.

  29. @ Hotaru

    You can figure it out by looking at the date of the comments, and my reply to kendalove's comment.

    @ karenteh

    It's hard to know all the details when you get your info second hand. I don't expect everyone to believe me either. I just want people to realize that there's another side to this situation.

  30. Dear Precious,

    Thanks for giving this infos and clarification. These past days, i really think that maybe SM is not the villain in this whole drama. Thanks for the clarifications, you saved 30% of my life. I hope the truth will come out soon and I wish that the court would give the right decision.

  31. You're great!! I truly thank you, because you managed, nicely, to convince me SM really isn't what the public assumes it is...
    I like how you include sources and evidence in whatever you post, so I find all of this very reliable...(and it shows through your posts you are an intelligent individual who offered sharp analysis on the whole subject :)

    But I am still unsure because if SM gives its artists such nice conditions and terms, then how come previous SM artists also filed lawsuits and left the company? (Shinhwa, HOT?)
    The term "slave contract" wasn't coined over night, surly...

  32. @ Sunshine Dreamer
    I hope so too. :)

    @ freezingsoul

    There was NEVER a lawsuit against SM from Shinhwa and HOT. Both groups fulfilled their contracts before leaving SM. Shinhwa had trouble with SM about using their name, but it was settled (I think Shinhwa bought their name from SM, but not 100% sure). I may write a detailed post about those groups. SES fulfilled their contracts too.

  33. While I don't agree with all the points on the contract, I understand what your trying to put across. Sm followed kftc standards on their contracts with tvxq. And that is all that is going to be argued in court. Everytime kftc changed the standards sm voluntarily changed the contracts as well even though it must have been a bother to them.I agree with you precious, the contract is not the main reason why they filed the lawsuit. They already knew about the contract especially as it had been amended five times with their parents' presence. They just wanted out of sm so they can make more money with crebeau. Money isn't everything. Friendship is more important than any money you make in this world, yet they chose money over their friends and that to me is the sad part of this whole mess. I don't believe they will ever be close with homin ever again. I believe they were at the point in their careers where they were going to make a lot of money anyway. So now they have all this money and have not only lost homin but a lot of their other friends from sm as well. Was it worth it?

  34. @ apooli
    Yes, that was my point. SM is not a "slave driver" like some haters like to say it is. SM is not perfect, but no business is. I do not agree with some part of the contract either, but it's definitely not a "slave" contract, and also it not enough to break TVXQ.

    BTW, unfortunately, FTC standard will be considered in court, but it does not have legal authority, so CJS can still win the lawsuit.

  35. Just wondering, do you by any chance work for SM? Since it sounds more like you're trying to clear up SM's name than having any real concern for TVXQ/JYJ/Homin since none of your posts actually address Homin which you say you are biased towards. Rather, you seem to be vehemently trying to state facts to support SM and discredit JYJ than actually supporting HoMin.

    While I don't deny that you have facts, but you only state facts which support SM and discredit or do not mention anything unbiased towards JYJ. You mentioned that you started this blog because of the many JYJ biased sites. But it seems now like you started this blog to bash JYJ and clear SM.

    So the title of your blog shouldn't even mention TVXQ. Instead, it should be "The Truth about SM".

  36. hahahahahahah oh my Precious! i don't think Ginseng is enough for u, u may need Kryptonite now!!! too many drama/movie to watch lately ^^

    and ... sorry for being over active today since i really enjoy re-visiting ur posts tonite! so happened to see many new comments ^^

    btw, Seohyun is my fav in SNSD don't forget to get her autograph for me ^^ tks LOL

  37. @ Nikki

    No, but I've been hearing that a lot lately LOL.

    Besides, you're not going to trust my answer anyways, so why bother?

    I guess you're just refusing to accept that attacking SM is attacking HoMin, and you're also failing to see HoMin is getting viciously bashed by anti-SM fans because they supported SM, but that's ok. I cannot convince everyone.

    Anyways, since you agree that I have fact, have I succeeded in clearing SM's name?

    @ adrenalinss
    I really wish SM would contact me and offer their "slave" contract. I'd sign a 20 year contract. LOL

  38. I like the way you have expressed your post. Thanks for sharing!

    Sample Contracts

  39. keep up the good work, tomodachi

  40. I have a question! :D Since SM already changed the contracts of its other artists, by any chance did they also changed TVXQ's contract? Or they can't since it's already been examined by the court?

  41. @ yunho2

    The contracts between artists and the company are always renegotiated and modified if both sides agree. TVXQ's contract was already amended 5 times, so it is possible that it is changed. I am sure SM appreciates the 2 sticking with them, so it is possible that they changed the contract for the better, but no details were released to the public so I don't know for sure.

  42. Good post and Smart Blog
    Thanks for your good information and i hope to subscribe and visit my blog What is Gonorrhea and more Gonorrhea in Women thanks again admin