It's still about profit. One of the primary concerns with the studio heads is the concept of ownership (the concept of ownership is the key to all studio profits, they can't make any money on anything if people don't think they own it), they want as much of that to lie with them as possible, anything that could possibly by any application of thought weaken the concept of ownership they're against. Some people on this thread have already used the existence of that technology and the law that protected that technology to criticize this court decision. Get enough SCOTUS justices who agree with that line of thinking (which I believe is in error, but we all have SCOTUS decisions we think were patently stupid) and this decision gets reversed, which would severely weaken their ownership, and thus negatively impact their profits.
Then, of course, there are the non-studio heads, who think of themselves as "artists" and get their panties in a bunch whenever anybody tries to change anything about their "masterpiece".
What is amusing about these discussions is the fact that those who would argue to the death for the concept of ownership for a piece of real estate don't accord the same rights to a piece of intellectual property.