3 ms·
The reason it is the worst idea ever is 2 fold: 1) It is completely unnecessary to waste paper and natural resources on a book that will only be read by one pe
by wtvanhest 15y ago
The reason it is the worst idea ever is 2 fold:
1) It is completely unnecessary to waste paper and natural resources on a book that will only be read by one person.
2) There is a perfectly good medium for reading low volume books which is readily available.
Rather than printing a classic yourself, it makes far more sense to buy a high quality copy. This will really be targeted at low volume books.
- pwg 15y ago> 1) It is completely unnecessary to waste paper and natural resources on a book that will only be read by one person. Why do you consider that a book produced via this process would "only be read by one person" (implying that mass printed books are more likely to be "read by more than one person" than books produced via this process). This book will be just as physical an entity as the mass printed book, and have all the DRM free attributes of a mass printed paper book. It could be loaned to another, it could be donated to a local library after having been read, it could be donated to a book drive at a school. The only way it would differ from a mass printed book is simply by not having been mass printed. Otherwise I would think its chance of being read by one, or more than one, person is identical to a mass printed book.
- wtvanhest 15y agoMy 'assumption' whether good or not is: 1) Books that are not in high enough demand to be mass printed are going to find it hard to be distributed after the first read. Niche books will sometimes transfer between people in similar groups, but other than those rare instances it will be hard to find a second home. 2) I'm assuming the quality will not be as good as a mass printed book and will deteriorate more quickly.