What is it about record companies that make some people see them as innocent? There are so many stories from artists, that are not happy stories for the artists. To be frank, I have yet to hear a happy one. And believe me, I'm searching. There's the notion that there's no such thing as a savvy artist who never screws up, financially, and the record company is always considered savvy..big..and smart, and never screws up. What is it? Is it the look? It somehow LOOKS like it's a business, with invisible faces..and, therefore, it cannot fail? Is it because the artist is seen , and, therefore it's easier to see the artist as prone to making financial mistakes? Why does it seem harder to accept that the big company might just be a big thief, and it's not just.....'doing business'? More often than not, it's assumed, more often, that the artist is more likely to make a financial mistake, than the company. Yes, I'm thinking about Michael, as a victim, but he's not the only one. I'm not going to even get into what is it about Michael that made some assume to see him as not able to manage his money, correctly. But, whoever is willing to discuss, what it is, in their opinion, about Michael, that made this notion prevail and that the big record company is assumed to be perfect, Im interested in your opinions. Here is a video of some other artists who have their own story, at about 13:07. I can name so many artists who have similar stories, but I won't.