[Edaily Starin YUN GI BACK Reporter] The last day of August arrived, marking the moment when the government’s “holdback” measure—a grace period delaying the release of films on other platforms following their theatrical run—was set to reach a conclusion. While the policy aims to protect the theater industry by preventing movies released in theaters from being available on Over-the-Top (OTT) services for a certain period, it has sparked sharp divisions within the film industry itself. All eyes are on the government’s decision: will this serve as a safety net to save theaters, or will it become yet another barrier hindering content distribution?

According to the film industry on the 31st, the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism has been discussing a voluntary agreement on film holdback periods through a public-private consultative body involving the production, distribution, and exhibition sectors, as well as Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) and OTT operators. The government initially proposed a plan to coordinate the opinions of stakeholders in August and formulate specific measures.
Currently, there is no legally mandated mandatory hold period in South Korea before a film released in theaters can be made available on other platforms such as OTT or IPTV. The timing of release varies depending on individual contracts and distribution strategies.
The starting point for these discussions is the cinema industry, which is in crisis. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, OTT services have grown rapidly, and as the gap between theatrical releases and online releases has narrowed, the perception that “if you wait just a little while, you can watch it on OTT” has become widespread. The theater industry has long argued that guaranteeing a minimum exclusive screening period is necessary to give audiences a reason to watch movies in theaters. Their logic is that a holdback period is essential to break the vicious cycle where declining theater revenue leads to a contraction in investment and production.
The issue is “how long to make them wait.” A public-private consultative body has been discussing proposals such as a holdback period of approximately 150 days between a theatrical release and a subscription-based OTT release. However, the production and distribution industries are pushing back, arguing that applying the same standard to all films could actually make it harder to recoup profits.
In particular, a wait of nearly five months could be devastating for smaller films. If OTT releases are blocked for films that failed to attract audiences early on and were quickly pulled from theaters, a “distribution gap” arises where the film reaches no audience—neither in theaters nor online. This is why critics question whether it is realistic to impose a single timeframe on films that vary widely in production costs, box office potential, and investment and distribution models.
There are also concerns that this restricts consumer choice. Since it forces even audiences who prefer OTT or IPTV over theater visits to wait for a certain period, it could unduly limit their right to decide when and where to watch content. Furthermore, the decline in theater attendance stems from a combination of factors—including the growth of OTT services, ticket prices, the competitiveness of content, and changing viewing habits—rather than OTT growth alone. This is why it is difficult to assume that simply delaying online releases will bring audiences back to theaters.
Ultimately, the key issue is not whether to implement a holdback period, but “how” to do so. The core questions are whether to apply it uniformly to all films, start with select titles such as government-supported productions, or vary the duration based on each film’s specific characteristics. Approaches such as industry self-regulation agreements or incentives, rather than legal mandates, could also be viable options.
The government’s deadline for reaching a conclusion by the end of August has now passed. If the government excessively restricts other distribution channels in the name of protecting theaters, it could limit both the ability of production and distribution companies to recoup their profits and consumers’ freedom of choice. Conversely, if it emphasizes distribution autonomy alone, the policy’s original intent of protecting theaters will be undermined. Ultimately, whether the holdback period will be a solution that breathes new life into the stagnant Korean film industry or just another regulation depends on how skillfully the government navigates these conflicting interests.