This isn't an accurate analogy because the OP has no option to enter the venue at all, even if they want to pay.
> no one has a right to experience a specific piece of creative content
The whole motive behind copyright is that society is entitled to culture. By granting artists a time-limited monopoly, they can be incentivized to create and release more and more content, which makes society's culture richer and more widely available to everyone.
So I'd argue that the status quo OP describes is contrary to the actual objective of copyright itself.
Are you suggesting that if i couldn't get a ticket to a concert i want to see, I am entitled to some kind of compensation?
That wasn't my main argument however. Please read it below in my original response.
Should you be able to attend an event without a ticket, just because that venue has a "monopoly" on that evening's entertainment? You're not reducing the enjoyment of others, nor are you decreasing the artist's revenue.