Quote:
Originally Posted by pdurrant
I don't think one needs to take a balanced view of all situations. Sometimes one side is right and one side is wrong. I think that's the case here.
|
Regardless, this part of Kali's argument:
Quote:
|
And no, the court is not going to find that Harlequin should have paid 70%, just because Amazon offered a high payment to self-publishers. That's patently absurd.
|
is clearly correct.
Amazon simply offer a storefront, it is up to the authors to do everything else.
My guess would be that the vast majority of sales that a Harlequin author gets are due to the Harlequin branding, rather than their own person reputation. Harlequin are entitled to charge for that branding.