In a way, this is actually a good sign. It shows the content providers are scared. You are not doing things right if you are not shaking things up and scaring people. That is what disruptive technology is about.
Many startups face similar challenges and this reminds me of the struggles ones such as GlassesDirect.co.uk had to go through before becoming successful (they could have been crushed many times by Goliaths but fought through) - it had to close several times when major competitors and retailers tried to sabotage its business by forcing manufacturers/suppliers to drop GlassesDirect (else they would withdraw their vastly larger orders) and running smear campaigns in the press with false allegations about why using the service was illegal and substandard.
In this case, yes, content providers have a right to choose where/how their content is shown, but this is probably more to do with not getting licensing fees from Boxee than anything else. However, if they do not adopt/embrace legal methods such as Boxee (and insert extra adverts etc. to make the revenue they want), then they only encourage illegal methods.
---
Concerted efforts to sabotage the new venture have proved fruitless. In September, his main supplier mysteriously dropped him. “They suddenly said they couldn’t do business with me. I reckon they had pressure put on them by a high-street chain. It took me a week to find a new supplier and re-do the website.” The trade press confirmed his paranoia when letters and articles appeared questioning the firm’s credentials and the General Optical Council launched an investigation. “Groundless attacks. I have fully qualified opticians working in labs, making the glasses. [http://www.realbusiness.co.uk/archive/4775601/feature-glasse...]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Murray_Wells