> 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.

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.