I'm not exactly the kind of person that would support Amazon on anything, but this is sort of what "exclusive" means, you know. So this amazed tone he uses to repeat you cannot sell "exclusive" stuff at other places is pretty silly.
Could you put your file on a harddisk and sell that? Again, no, because writing it to disk _creates a new copy_, so now you're violating copyright.
There's actually pretty solid legal argument for first doctrine not applying to digital media.
However, things get more interesting when you're selling your _license_ or your _access_ to some content. For example, can you sell your entire account to someone else, so that they now have access to what you no longer have access to? Depending on where you live: yes, you can.
Of course there is. When someone uses a loophole, they’re doing something legal to get an unintended or nonobvious benefit— If an activity isn’t legal, it isn’t a using a loophole: it’s just fraudulent / criminal behavior.
The net effect of moving from producer-supplied media to consumer-supplied media has (among other things) resulted in a de facto curtailment of historical consumers’ rights, despite nobody doing anything illegal. The original drafters of copyright simply didn’t envision a world where products would be regularly delivered in a form that couldn’t be physically separated from the purchaser’s other posessions.
Should we force all performers to make their content available to buy to anyone across the world? I'm not necessarily against this, but it would be quite a big change.
A harder question is where the line between these two regimes should be: movie theaters and television stations are generally treated like performances despite showing recorded content. Netflix acts like a rental company: when you drop your subscription, you lose access to their library.
I was lamenting (in the context of Hamilton) that relatively few Broadway shows--or, really, theater of any kind--have video versions available, even straightforward one or two camera versions.
I expect it's mostly some combination of rights and a desire not to diminish the somewhat exclusive nature of live theater. The main exception I can think of is opera mostly because of The Met Live in HD although there are a few others like The Globe (of course, Shakespeare's plays aren't under copyright).
There is obviously a grey area here. I don't know how much Amazon is in the business of creating books (i.e. hiring authors to write them).
The main difference is see between this and Netflix exclusives is that Netflix takes an active have in making their own content (it's a Netflix movie, not a X director movie on Netflix), they have competition in the marketplace and the financial dynamics of movies is different from books.
The Irishman and Da 5 Bloods are very much a Scorsese film and a Spike Lee joint.