But even if some resellers are getting titles for 70% off list price, that doesn't translate to them retaining 70% of the revenue from the sale unless they're s

But even if some resellers are getting titles for 70% off list price, that doesn't translate to them retaining 70% of the revenue from the sale unless they're selling the title at list price. No reseller with the market muscle to demand a 70% wholesale discount is selling those titles at list price! Personally I think your figures ($24 list price, 70% wholesale discount) are edge cases, and don't represent a typical sale. But even if we take them at face value, in your example the publisher/author get $7.20 of my $16 and the distributor/reseller get $8.80. That's a 55/45 revenue split, not a 70/30 split. This also assumes I'm buying at 1/3 off list, which is on the low side. Amazon is discounting bestsellers by at least 45%, with a select few going for 60% off or more. Example: Going Rogue, list price $28.99, sale price $13.50 (53% off). If Amazon's getting a 70% wholesale discount, HarperCollins gets $8.70 and Amazon keeps $4.80. That's a revenue split of 65/45 in the publisher's favor. So: when I buy a hardcover that's been discounted down to $16, the actual reality is that the distributor/reseller is not making twice as much on the sale as the publisher/author -- it's more like a 50/50 split. None of which is to say I support Amazon OR Macmillan's position in this particular battle (they're both wildly overreaching, IMO). I just think your example inappropriately conflates two different things.