drabacus: The main development in the last decade, as even Irving Welsh can tell you, is that amateurs are uploading homemade material. And it turns out that this is what the average porn viewer wants. By and large, it seems people are far more interested in the Smiths next door banging away than in the fakery of most American pron (and American porn has its own peculiarly bad aesthetic which is put to shame by French or Czech productions).
While many of us, including myself, have said that if people don't pay for porn, then there won't be producers willing to put thousands of dollars into a production just to have his profits sucked up by the free tubes. While that may certainly impact the volume available, drabacus's comment drives home the point that the internet is available to ANYONE to share personal porn footage. And that includes all of the niches and sub-niches that people are turned on by. So while selective niche sites may still be afloat, it does bring into question just how long can they maintain a profitable bottom line.

And there is also the wider question: do those who use porn not, perhaps, owe it a little something? Should those who download it not be ready to pass on a little cash incentive to the business? And if not, why not? Does the stigma attached to porn make it OK to steal it? These questions underpin a much bigger dilemma being faced by all media: how do you sustain an industry that provides a certain standard of product – be it journalism, music, or mainstream movies, or X-rated movies – when more and more consumers are in the habit of downloading content for free? In the world of porn, the answer is: you can't.
And I have to admit, I agree that the industry won't be able to sustain itself on the internet with the volume of sites offering free access, or average joe personal "sharing" sites.