View Single Post
Old 10-03-2024, 07:02 AM   #594
John F
Grand Sorcerer
John F ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.John F ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.John F ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.John F ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.John F ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.John F ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.John F ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.John F ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.John F ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.John F ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.John F ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 7,967
Karma: 71261339
Join Date: Feb 2009
Device: Kobo Clara 2E
Quote:
Originally Posted by DNSB View Post
The publisher in the USA who were assigned the copyright noticed/was informed of the issue and issued Amazon with a DMCA takedown notice. I suspect the seller did not have the chance to receive much money from Amazon due to the delays between sales and payments but there are not many facts flying around as to how long from when Amazon offered the ebook to when they pulled it from sale.

...
So let's assume we use your:

Quote:
... while a book priced at $2.99 with a size of 2MB on the 70% plan would have Amazon receive $0.897 plus $0.30 delivery fee so the author would receive $1.793 per sale.
So let's assume the customer paid $2.99 in the 1984 case. Amazon kept $0.897 + $0.30 and put $1.793 in the seller's account.

Amazon honors the takedown notice. They return the money to customer. So $2.99 - $2.99 = 0. So technically, Amazon received there "cut", but the cut was 0. They may have received a bigger cut if the seller sold other ebooks.

DNSB, it may time to reconsider that CFO dream.
John F is offline   Reply With Quote