There is no individual ‘right to get paid’. and if you two covers it and people buy it from them then it seems clear to me that U2 are offering something that the original artist could not, namely the song being performed by U2. It seems that there are two possibilities: either people are buying ‘the song’ and in this case you should have sold them it, or people are buying the ‘U2 song’ which is a product the original artist couldn ot supply. Either way there is nothing to suggest that you ‘should’ get ‘paid’ (at what price? a serious question). But again, I would never rely on these arguments to ‘prove’ my position, for this I would rely more one the ‘something non-physical cannot be property (namely homesteaded or involved in contracted exchange)’.
Of course there’s no right to get paid, but getting paid is the incentive to work, to innovate and to create. We know what happens when people don’t have the profit incentive - they don’t work as hard - so artists won’t create as much. That’s a bad thing. In an industrial application, being first to market can provide that incentive. Buying futures can provide that incentive. But in software and music, where there is no manufacturing time lag involved, where does the profit incentive come from?