Quote:
Originally Posted by John F
So let's assume we use your:
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.  |
Amazon, as the seller of the book, definitely took their cut and banked it. But they were later forced to give it back due to the fact that they had sold an illegitimate book. "Forced" could have been an internal management directive, or an external legal process - I am not privy to the details. But having to give back their cut does not mean that Amazon was not the seller, or that they did not take a cut in the first place. It just means that Amazon screwed up as seller and had to pay for their mistake.