South Korean Music Retailers Dying

terrymaster69 writes "According to this Reuters feature, 95% of South Korean music retail businesses have failed in the last year. 'While South Korea is not alone in seeing a downturn, the drop has been greatly accentuated and particularly deep because of the country's high-speed Internet access and a youth culture that uses some of the most sophisticated gadgets available.' Is this really a problem or just a natural progression?"

0 + 0 = 0

[PHPgawd]

Say what you want about file sharing, about whether its unstoppable, inevitable, etc. etc. The bottom line is that it takes the money out of music, leaving both big evil record companies and stuggling artists with no money.

Are "professional" song writers that make their primary living as artists a thing of the past? If South Korea is any indication, the answer is YES...

Of course I see it as a good thing.

[ahfoo]

But I think the intriguing part is not the situation in Korea itself as much as the reaction to it in the US.
I just read in Business Week that the US slipped from number three --I'm pretty sure we're talking raw numbers rather than percentages-- to number ten in global broadband rankings. It's not altogether impossible that this decline is going to get worse rather than better in the near term.
And if it doesn't, if something like Wi-Max suddenly turns things around, then it could be even more interesting. Let's hope it's the latter rather than the former. But even then, there would be reprecussions for a rather large number of corporations beyond just music.

Adaptation

[mirko]

If "95% of the music retailers have failed", it could be because of foreign concurrence or simply because there were 20 x too many of them.
anyway, the FUD part of this announcement should also be considered.
I know which conclusions people want us to draw.

Well, I was in Seoul in 1991...

[Atrax]

... and although that is admittedly a long time ago, at least 95% of the music I saw on sale was in the form of copied cassettes with shoddilly photocopied covers.

In fact I still have two of these tapes going strong now (and before anyone whines about me being a pirate, I also own legitimate copies thereof).

Now, I don't know whether it was just the shops I was going to, but it seemed there was a cultural predilection for fake stuff - which is just being amplified heavily by the ease of broadband access.

perhaps this is good

[Omniscientist]

I've long been torn between whether or not p2p is ethical to me or not, its a very hard debate. but , after reading a post here, i'm really interested in what music would be like if gigantic labels lost alot of money and eventually become non-existant...is it possible that p2p would lead to only true music where the artist loved his craft, or is p2p just something that has spawned off people's desire to want everything for free (because hell, we pay enough for other things in life)

i believe that if p2p leads to the complete destruction of the music industry and all its corporations, that only true artists who really love their craft and care nothing about fame will be dominant and music and life (because my life mirrors the music I listen to) will be wonderful.

Re:Natural

[sandwiches]

Obviously, everyone likes to get things free. It's obvious that if given the choice between paying $0 and paying ANY amount over that, people will choose $0 more likely than not.
I think it's time everyone woke up, including content creators such as musicians and movie makers, and took a long and realistic look at the way information is shared, today. They will realize that people sharing their intellectual "property" for free is truly inevitable.
All the efforts and money put into tracking pirates and creating new protection schemes, should be used into figuring out a way to still be able to sell people something they cannot get online. Sharing information will not stop. I think the question of whether it is immoral, illegal, or unethical is moot at this point. It will not be stopped and if you look closely, the new generations have even less and less inhibitions when it comes to "piracy".
Now, I wonder this: How will an artist born in a generation where he knows all his works can be traded for free, at any time, feel about it? Right now, most artists and publishers are complaining because they have seen the golden days, but what about the new kind of artist that is born knowing that he will most likely not be compensated monetarily for simply making a song?

way too simple

[poptones]

What are you defining as "free?" Convenience? Quality? immediacy?

That damn Victoria's Secret commercial with the first few notes of "Monkey Man" got that song stuck in my head and last night I had to clear it out. Now, I lost virtually my entire MP3 collection about a month ago and have been able to restore only a tiny part of it, so it's not like I could just "click on the mp3." And while I have an LP of that album somewhere in my collection, I haven't had a turntable in years.

So I headed for easynews (not free: ten bucks a month). Believe it or not no one has posted that song in the last 22 days or so, so I had to pay for it. Now, did I go to one of the RIAA backed sites? No - I went to allofmp3.com. Why? Because the RIAA is fighting to lobby away my rights AND force me to subsidize their arrogance, so there's no way in hell they're US member is gonna get a penny. I settled for the lower quality (allofmp3's rip quality kinda sucks although the end product is still likely higher than the 128kbps crap from most US sites) and paid the Russians (who are NOT lobbying Washington to erode my rights) a dime for the track. Don't know how the BOM works but it's still likely whoever owns that album got paid - just a LOT less than if I bought from a US vendor.

Bottom line: it's not always about free, but it is now universally about freedom. In this case, the free market deprived the US industry of a buck while getting the Russians a dime. This happened for no other reason than the US entertainment industry has pissed me off to the point I refuse to support it.

God I love free trade...

Re:Natural

[A1kmm]

I don't get paid due to a government imposed monopoly. Anyone else can apply for a job doing the same type of work as I do(if they have the correct skillset). If, due to government regulation, I was the only person in the country allowed to write software, you might have a point. But my employment is controlled by market economics.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't get paid, I am saying that the ability to repress someone else's freedom to distribute should not last after you have been paid reasonably for your creation. After that, you should still be allowed to distribute the work, but on the same terms as everybody else. The creator has been rewarded, and the price to end users of the information is controlled by market economics and will tend to the marginal cost of distribution(or less, if people are willing to distribute at a loss).

They are unneeded...

[Eternal Annoyance]

Lets face it, we are in the information age. An age, where information doesn't need any resellers. Perhaps the resellers need to refocus on providing information themselves, instead of simply reselling information which can be found cheaper somewhere else. This 'problem' is going to spread around the world as internet access gets more widely spread, and gets cheaper and cheaper.

Re:Natural Progression.

[Mant]

Listening to a studio album is very different thing from watching a live gig. I love live gigs, but they are not way interchangable with listening to an album, which is vastly more convenient.

Watching artists perfom and listening to their albums are complementary things (for the vast majority of people), not somehow in opposition. People don't get an album instead of seeing a gig, or vice versa.

What is more, if I'm listening to music at home/work/car/walking around I'll take the studio album almost every time over a live recording. I'm hardly unique, the music industry is right in this sense, people in general want studio albums much more than they want to see live gigs.

From the artists perspective you a largely right about the value. For many bands, they make bugger all from the albums as the record companies take their costs from the band's cut. From their point of view they are more to get people to come to the live shows where they make the money.

Natural Progression

[NimNar]

The P2P distribution method is so compelling that it will win out -- even if it's illegal right now.

For Americans this might not be case. Let's keep in mind the way drug research is supported. Americans subsidize medicines for the entire world through high drug prices as well as the NIH grants that go to researchers in American universities. In the rest of the world the same medicines are available at much lower cost. In a parallel way, MPAA may keep US citizens from using P2P, but the rest of us will get it for free.

Even though Amazon will ship old Bogart films practically anywhere in the world, the fact is that any Bogart film ever made can be easily downloaded on eMule by anyone on the Internet. As someone in Eastern Europe right now, I am certain the P2P global availability will break the back of MPAA/RIAA.

fondling bjork

[poptones]

I haven't been to a theater, paid for tv, or even subscribed to a magazine in years. I maintain multiple usenet accounts and regularly have to refresh them before the month has run out. Keep this in mind as I defend NOT taking the download approach.

Bjork has a new CD out. Now, I dearly love bjork. You could quite honestly say I am a "fan" - you could even say I am somewhat obsessed with her work. And I have multiple usenet accounts which I frequently employ so as to keep up with my favorite tv shows (bad reception and rural living means tivo is useless to me). It would be trivial to add a pretty high quality rip of bjork's latest CD to my download folder. However:

I don't have a jacket to fondle - with that cool picture of her nearly topless and wearing what looks almost like S&M gear. Is there more inside? I don't know.

Her latest release is actually a DVD with 5.1 sound, two channel PCM sound, and video interviews. While I might be able to download all this stuff as a high quality ISO of the DVD (which would cost me a large percentage of the bandwidth I pay ten bucks a month for), if I do so I still...

I don't have the liner notes to read as I listen, nor do I have the satisfaction of knowing I gave Bjork my further support in the only way I can (at least until she realizes I'm alive and comes to live with me forever in my modest country home) - by giving her some money.

And so my download experience becomes significantly less fulfilling than were I to order the meatspace stuff and wait for its delivery. While there's a small chance I might not like the release at all, the fact is I "just want it because it's Bjork." And, as they say, it's never like the first time again.

So, I go to bjork.com, fill out a form, and wait...

Re:0 + 0 = 0

[Zog The Undeniable]

Remember, art is not business or "industry" (a most annoying lie).

No, *art* isn't, but Britney and Justin are an industry just like hamburgers. So there could be a bright side to the imminent death of the industry :-)

Re:Natural

[IgnoramusMaximus]

I wrote that "people want information to be free", which is why this is all going on.

Which h is at its core false. The question is framed by those who wish you to make assumptions such as: information can be "free", thus conversly it can also have a "price" and then before you can blink the entire mountain of "Intellectual Property" rubbish is balanced on this assumption.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Why this is happening...

[sien]

There was another system that made CDs like that in the early 90s. I met a guy who worked at one of the shops where they were running the trial.

He alleges that the trial failed as there was rampant abuse and piracy committed by the employees including himself.

They would have paid the price regardless. They just wanted to slow down the effects.

Re:Natural

[IgnoramusMaximus]

assuming some larger overriding principles are true

And herein lies the rub: they are not. Information does not have the required physical properties to be "private property" nor "labour" (or action) and thus is entirely outside traditional economic considerations. The only type of contract that could be drawn is one obligating one party to maintain information in one of its fundamental states: known or unknown. One could swear secrecy for example. Unfortunately this is entirely impossible to apply to enterntainment because the objective of a broadcaster/distributor is to disseminate information and thus break the secrecy. The consumer cannot be required to work for the music company in guarding the secrecy, even if one ignores the fact that the very medium on which the information is disseminated (air vibrations) is not conducive to secrecy.

Re:Natural

[mrchaotica]

As Deemon said, how is copyright infringement immoral?

You know, waaay back in 1787 Thomas Jefferson was against copyright (and "intellectual property" in general) entirely. [kuro5hin.org] He only reluctantly agreed to put copyright privilages in after Madison convinced him that there was little possibility for abuse, beacuse there was no "powerful few" back then:

"With regard to monopolies they are justly classed among the greatest nuisances in government. But is it clear that as encouragements to literary works and ingenious discoveries, they are not too valuable to be wholly renounced? Would it not suffice to reserve in all cases a right to the public to abolish the privilege at a price to be specified in the grant of it? Is there not also infinitely less danger of this abuse in our governments than in most others? Monopolies are sacrifices of the many to the few. Where the power is in the few it is natural for them to sacrifice the many to their own partialities and corruptions.

Where the power, as with us, is in the many not in the few, the danger can not be very great that the few will be thus favored [emphasis mine]. It is much more to be dreaded that the few will be unnecessarily sacrificed to the many.

With today's corporatism and powerful cartels (e.g. RIAA, MPAA, BSA), it seems that Madison's premise is no longer valid. Therefore, copyright itself is no longer morally justified, and should be abolished!

Re:let's see...

[nsda's_deviant]

actually no, the industry in korea doesn't have that kind of power. what actually is happening is that people are using streaming music to build playlists and they're not buying CDs. Streaming music providers such as bugs music has 14 million subscribers, SK has 41 million people. Streaming music is also Audio ON Demand, pick songs and it will build you a playlist that you can save and retrieve. Its fucking awesome man, my gf and I haven't bought a CD in years. There's just no point.

the troubling aspect in Korea right now is that good artists arn't being rewarded...

Censorship and otherwise

[quintessencesluglord]

Keep in mind S. Korea is a relatively new democracy. I can point out Kwangju Diary as a flashpoint in its evolution, and you can see how things have pretty much progressed from there. What does this have to do with music retailers dying out? Well, look at the S Korean release of The Cult's "Love", and you'll note the song "Revolution" is missing. It was banned by the government. However, the song is freely available online. As well as a bunch of other songs, news, and info. You can't keep people in the dark if they don't want to be. If you want that song, what is your source? Congratulations, you just broke the copyright by working your way around an artificial control. The situation with the RIAA/copyright isn't much different. Putting aside the whole copyright issue, it becomes a simple case of supply and demand. You have an infinite supply on P2P networks, and a worldwide demand of internet users. How is this so fucking hard to understand? You either integrate with the standing technology or you die. You can't stand on your molehill and demand all the technology be revised to suit your specific demands (well, unless you got one damn good lobbying group). Put the onus on the content providers. Let them come up with their uncrackable format. Let them come up with their proprietary players. Hell, let them come up with there own internet. See how long they last. You want music on the web? You want music in a digital format? Well, you're gonna have to compromise. Just don't expect everyone else to be stupid enough to buy in to your outrage over file sharing compared to their outrage of paying $18 a pop. And try getting a copy of Ratticus past US customs. Information does indeed want to be free.

Re:Well I'm not korean but...

[xylix]

I am not Korean either, but I have spent a few years working for and with Koreans, and teaching large numbers of Korean students. A lot of the posts here seem to be trying to make some parallel between music stores dying in Korea and the situation (or laws) in Western countries. I don't think that is valid. I am no Korean expert, but my impression from my bosses / coworkers is that this 'problem' of dying music stores is just evidence of the fact that EVERYONE in the country is pirating everything.

OK, that may be a bit over the top, but my point is they do things different. I used to be a director at a small language school in Toronto [cacenglish.com]. Once or twice a month I would need up-to-date information on student enrollment etc - information kept in the database. but the school only had a licence for 3 copies, already used by the General Manager, admissions officer and receptionist. So once a month I would ask the (Korean) GM to email me a spreadsheet of the relevant info. Each time I would have to explain that I can no see the database since I don't have Access on my computer. And each time she would tell me "just install it". And each time I would explain to her about having 3 licences and how this is not done in legit businesses. Every frickin' month! same stuff. When they needed graphic software ... they asked someone to give them a copy. I explained about how software purchases would be legitimate business expenses and could be written off. But the GM seemed incredulous - for her EVERYONE copied. There was no point in paying money for software, even if it could be written off.

The Korean student were mostly in their early to mid twenties and they had a similar mindset. I remember mentioning a new CD I bought of some band I really like. A half dozen Korean student agreed I was stupid since I could probably download it. Just to be clear I am not saint. i have 50 GB of music on my hard drive and not all of it is ripped from CDs I own. Likewise, not all of my software has been purchased. But a lot has, and I will gladly shell out the money for a CD of a band I really like. (Say the upcoming U2 one.) But I strongly feel businesses should not be blatantly pirating.

I played devil's advocate with a group of Korean students. They said I could just download any music. I said it was a kind of stealing since the artists don't get paid. A few of the girls just DIDN'T GET THIS! (All the guys did.) Their response was always "well everyone does it, so it is OK."

My impression is that copying / pirating music and software is FAR more rampant in Korea than in my country (Canada). And this is more a matter of culture than access to high speed internet. From young people to business people, it is just standard operating procedure to use a copy, and not make a purchase.

On a totally different note ... I am now living in japan where it is LEGAL to rent CDs and make your own copy. The video shops do a brisk business in CD rentals. I think this is banned in Canada and the US. Seems like forward thinking on the part of the Japanese music companies. People want to borrow music and make copies - why not make it easy and get them to pay for the privilage. I copied over 100 CDs this way.