If you consider porn's true role -- as supplement to or surrogate for an actually existing sexual life - it make perfect sense that quick view, mix and match web services would seriously undercut the feature film, DVD centric business model of firms such as Vivid.
Most people only need a visual pick me up to get things flowing, not a narrative. Zizek recently commented (during a lecture at Boston U, I think) that porn's 'see it all' aspect ironically acts as an inhibitor of narrative, rendering it useless. Which is why, he insists, porn scripts are usually so stupid. It's an inherent and hidden type of censorship -- not of the sexual content of course but subtly, of any depiction, even quasi-realistic, of human relations.
Contrary to moralists who declare this to be a bad thing (or the alt and neo porn-sters who cleverly try to preserve narrative in newfangled ways), I think it's completely understandable: the technology has finally caught up to the way people have long tried to use the product. During the videotape era, we typically fast forwarded to 'the good bits' -- something rarely done with any other type of movie.
Now the compilation of 'the good bits' is done for us and transmitted via streaming services. How, for example, could a (relatively) big budget Tera Patrick production hope to compete with a iTunes-esque super market that allows you to get just the scene you want for the precise length of time you want?
.d.
-- " Only 21st-century Americans can pass through a metal detector six times in an hour and still think they're at a party."
Matt Taibbi .............................. http://monroelab.net/blog/