So I've been where this author is. I've had a few book deals, and been constantly disappointed with the level of marketing the publisher does for me. "Put it on their website" is about the level of marketing I got too. Some book deals fall through, and sometimes I don't what I think is owed to me.
That being said, I can't imagine trying to negotiate my own custom deal that's different from the standard terms they offered. Having final approval authority for things such as the type of paper it's printed on... wow. I am not surprised O'Reilly is unable to meet those terms because how could they? How would the people running the print operation know that permission has to be asked from the author to change paper types? There's thousands of books, and that type of permission is just not normal. Its logistically not possible. Book publishing (unless you're Stephen King) runs on a standard set of terms for the most part.
The major benefit of working with a publisher is they give you money up front as you're writing the book (an advance). And you don't have to pay even $1 for any of the expenses of printing your book.
That's it. If you can self-publish and handle all the expenses yourself (copy editor, tech editor, indexer, layout, cover art, etc etc etc), then self-publish.
The publisher is taking all the risk here that the book won't sell. If you can take that risk, do it yourself.
I don't have experience in this area, but I dislike when people think this way in general, because it leads to comments like "oh, that's just standard language", and "no one else actually reads it all, I've never had that question before" in rather important contracts.
I often feel like I am signing my life away unnecessarily due to "standard contracts" that are highly asymmetrical, yet no one else cares or pushes back. So, I have to grant overreaching rights to the other party and just trust that they won't actually exercise it, for the sake of getting a deal done.
To me the paper approval seems like an odd request, but not logistically unreasonable. If they can communicate the content to the print operation, they can surely communicate a paper specification. Presumably they already do this for the paper size. More importantly, it doesn't matter. He did the deal because they agreed to his terms, whatever they were. That is them deciding that it's worth accommodating his parameters. If they thought they were logistically infeasible, they would have declined the deal, and both parties would be better off.
Edit: Ah, this is a book about design. That makes the paper approval request pretty reasonable, especially considering he had image bleed issues with the cheap paper.
That being said, I can't imagine trying to negotiate my own custom deal that's different from the standard terms they offered. Having final approval authority for things such as the type of paper it's printed on... wow. I am not surprised O'Reilly is unable to meet those terms because how could they? How would the people running the print operation know that permission has to be asked from the author to change paper types? There's thousands of books, and that type of permission is just not normal. Its logistically not possible. Book publishing (unless you're Stephen King) runs on a standard set of terms for the most part.
The major benefit of working with a publisher is they give you money up front as you're writing the book (an advance). And you don't have to pay even $1 for any of the expenses of printing your book.
That's it. If you can self-publish and handle all the expenses yourself (copy editor, tech editor, indexer, layout, cover art, etc etc etc), then self-publish.
The publisher is taking all the risk here that the book won't sell. If you can take that risk, do it yourself.