In a practical sense, you'd pay for music in pre-internet day because you want to listen to that song/album. Then, people on internet started paying for music b

In a practical sense, you'd pay for music in pre-internet day because you want to listen to that song/album. Then, people on internet started paying for music because it was easy and accessible (for some, it was easier to just download things off the "dark web" of that day). Now people pay music subscriptions because you don't have to think about where a specific song is: it's just there on Spotify/etc. Note that nowhere do I mention artists. Certainly (some people) also pay for art because they want to compensate for what the artist did but I think that increasingly, people pay artists to keep doing what they are doing. Not for what they did. So, no, I don't think the value that people pay an artist derives from a work that exists today, but derives from the value (speculatively) they will create on the future. And ultimately, I don't think any contract can enforce this, even a smartone.