Most people see disruption as a threat. The AMPTP leaders apparently see it as an opportunity--not for more profit per se, but for more power, more control over the process of filmmaking.

There's a saying among execs that "Producers are the last to be paid." I'm sure that this sequence is accurate in a sense. Writers, actors often get paid in advance; below-the-line workers get paid as a movie is made. But the saying indicates a kind of envy. If producers didn't corral the writers, actors, funders etc., then (from their point of view) a movie can't be made. The same argument of course could be advanced for everyone else involved in filming, distributing, and promoting movies. It's a cooperative venture. But the rhetoric of the AMPTP is survival of the fittest (one exec observed that the studios would actually save money during a writers' strike); hence the threats of writers going homeless.

The vast number of screenwriters (as I'm sure you know, Scott) comprise a tiny fraction of the cost of creation, distribution, and promotion. But the AMPTP is apparently dedicated to reducing that share even further.