This "entitlement to not be threatened" trope is based on the fallacy that all threats are the same.
The neighborhood coffee shop is not entitled to prevent Starbucks from opening across the street. It is entitled to protection from people throwing bricks through its windows.
Similarly: movie studios are not entitled to use their market power to prevent people from recruiting from the vast population of talented underutilized actors to make content under more consumer-friendly terms. But they are entitled to protection from other companies that would take the content they paid to generate to slap unauthorized advertising on it.
If I'm reading you right, I don't disagree with anything you're saying, but I don't think it refutes my point. Yes, there exist situations in which competition is unfair. This, however, is not one of them. This is a textbook case of fair competition being attacked simply because it's competition. It's an abuse of copyright law.
The neighborhood coffee shop is not entitled to prevent Starbucks from opening across the street. It is entitled to protection from people throwing bricks through its windows.
Similarly: movie studios are not entitled to use their market power to prevent people from recruiting from the vast population of talented underutilized actors to make content under more consumer-friendly terms. But they are entitled to protection from other companies that would take the content they paid to generate to slap unauthorized advertising on it.