What they do is create an IP for their shows, they deny the competition to compete where it counts; the quality of the service.
IP is a newer buzzword that has no established legal meaning. Ultimately, in terms of entertainment, IP only refers to the mechanisms of copyright and trademark. These exist without streaming services.
Your argument is like saying "Because Disney movies are copyrighted, they deny the competition the right to distribute said copyright works in a better format without consulting Disney whatsoever, much less offering any kind of compensation."
Pffft. Goddamn commie! (I knew I'd get the chance to call you a commie sooner or later. )
Two men are looking at a red wall, one of them says: "that's a red wall." The other frowns and answers: "the wall is clearly not white, so it must be black! pffft.... you're as blind as a bat. I knew I'd get the chance to call you a bat sooner or later."
I'm saying you're arguing against copyright itself.
I mean, you do know that the only thing copyright really does is allow the creator to control the distribution of their work?
They don't "create an IP", the shows are copyrighted. They are copyrighted from the moment they are created (at least, in the US. No paperwork required.) They're not denying "the competition" anything except not giving away their shows for free.
If a platform creates exclusive content to lure in consumers to their platform, well, that's perfectly legal and has been going on a long time. After all, The Legend of Zelda has been an Nintendo exclusive for what, 30 years now? The lack of Zelda games on other consoles doesn't stifle innovation for game consoles.