This is not accurate with regard to Google rankings as well as a drastic over-simplification of how PPC (pay-per-click) and PPI (pay-per-impression) advertising works.
Putting aside all concerns of the percentage Envato takes for its services (as participants in a free market economy, no one is being forced to accept any terms or compensation to which they do not consent), @SteelSound raises some extremely important concerns with regard to usage and accountability.
I know. I’m talking about ranking your ads high in the first spots. Google has a lot of factors regarding costs, but the price I mentioned is in the ballpark. The point is, it’s very expensive.
and Envato has 0 incentive to protect proper and fair use of licensed intellectual property. Their only incentive is to have access to the content so they can sell as many subscriptions as they possibly can. Once that subscription is sold, they are paid. The money is in their coffers. If the music track makes it on a super bowl TV spot with no respectable sync fee paid, they really do not have any incentive to cry foul because they do not have any skin in that game. Part of the problem is authors needs and wants and Envato’s needs and wants are not aligned. We want to sell sync fees, and ideally we want our music on air in the States and Europe and Australia (regions that take this stuff seriously). We want that reported and filed properly so we can also collect “performance royalties”. Hence we need to know if our music is getting used on a TV spot or a Tv show. This will also apply to YOUTUBE one day. I have to believe that “performance royalties” will go up from YOUTUBE…Or perhaps that can be looked at as “streaming royalties”.
I want to believe that Envato wants to do what is right and what is fair, but the way they behaved from 2008 to 2015 where tracks “licensed” for $14, then $17 and there was just tons of music allowed on air in Big Ad Campiagns in front of huge audiences and all those performance royalties went uncollected…well…that was a sad moment and sad period in this companies history. That can not happen again, ever.
All these worries about how elements will work and how much authors will earn only applies to those who were invited (less than 100) 99% of us will not have to worry about that.
It is correctly noted. Elements will not apply to most authors(less than 100 authors).
It’s 100 authors to start; more will be invited later.
The effects of the subscription-based model will be felt by authors whether or not they are on Elements.
It is not known when it will be.
Well, as I understand it’s another site(additional site), although it will have to do with the Envato market, nevertheless there will be buyers there and here too will be buyers. Do not confuse one with another… In a nutshell - an additional extension of the audience and the influx of customers. This does not affect the Envato market.
Hi @Sam-Stone, @RedOctopus and @CleanMagicAudio. Thanks for your patience on this. Yes, there are some updates to the Elements license following the addition of Audio on Elements, and these include some limitations around broadcast use. You can now find all the details on the Elements license here.
Hi @PurpleFogSound. Thanks for your question. As mentioned before, earnings will certainly differ based on individual authors, and a subscription model is a completely different product from a one-off purchase, so it is worthwhile understanding the dynamics of how it all works.
It’s designed as a new source of revenue that authors weren’t getting before, so these additional earnings are what help to generate an increase in overall earnings. I would encourage you to to look at Elements and think about the metrics that matter for a subscription (total monthly downloads, monthly earnings, average monthly earnings per item, etc.) and also reach out to other authors about their experiences. Video authors on Elements for example, have seen their earnings increase with Elements and you can read more about these experiences on the forums thread here.
Hi Sarah! It is necessary to register? I see this. I can not open your link.
What happens if you agree to the terms, click on the start browsing button? You may need to try the link again though.
I opened it already. I logged out of the account and opened. I just thought that they could withdraw money from the account(if I clicked the top checkmark). 
Thank you!
There is a known misunderstanding with the Audience size metric. Most buyers understand it as being their actual audience score. You guys have not clarified the definition of the Audience Size, despite staff having told me you would.
So the limitation on Broadcast use is virtually non existent for buyers, as very few TV shows have an actual audience over 10 million people. Music put on Elements will be able to be broadcast and author will get mere cents (probably less) for it. We AJ authors have spent years fighting, saying it was not ok for us to get only $14 from a broadcaster. Now, we’ll get fraction of cents… Awesome! And this, still without making PRO cue sheets (or similar) mandatory.
You keep saying this. But there are plenty of Marketplace buyers who switched to Elements. From those, authors are not getting a new sources of revenue they weren’t getting before. Authors are getting less from those buyers.
I am familiar with this thread. Your statement that video authors have seen their earning increase, is a bold one. Some video authors have seen an increase, while others have seen a decrease in their VideoHive sales.
Wow. That’s harsh:
For Broadcasts, the End Product may only be broadcast to limited regional audiences, which for the purposes of this license means there is an Audience Size limit of ten (10) million.
So that simply makes all improvements regarding higher tier licenses that were implemented on audiojungle during the last years more or less worthless. Do you guys really have so little knowledge of the standard rates in this market? Broadcast licenses for music are still worth sooooo much more. 
You’re slaughtering this market.
And then this:
P.R.O. Music. If the Item is P.R.O. Music, this means the author of the item is a member of a P.R.O. and/or the item is registered with a P.R.O. If you intend to use the P.R.O. Music in an End Product that is publicly performed or broadcast, then you may need to obtain additional performing rights from a P.R.O. and be subject to additional fees which are collected by a P.R.O. Nothing in this license acts as a waiver of any P.R.O. fees.
Sorry, but isn’t this just wrong? Please correct me, fellow composers, but my understanding always was that the BROADCASTER pays money to the PRO, not the production company. All the production company has to do is file a proper cue sheet with the PRO.
To summarize: You’re not only heavily attacking the market of professional composers by allowing Elements customers to use music in a broadcast context, you’re also scaring away customers from PRO registered music by putting out false information.
Exactly! This is going backwards. What do staff members (@EricSchwartz) having worked on these higher tier licenses think about Elements voiding their work? This is a huge blow to music authors. If we were unionized, this would not fly.
While this is true for most cases, there are buyers who also are broadcasters. PRO are not solely collecting on broadcast, but on all public performances. This is where buyers may have to pay performance royalties directly.
Hi @Sarah_G thanks for the reply.
Woooooaa. Broadcast allowed up to 10 mln audience size? This is a WAY to big audience allowed. Community alert here!
Check our licenses on AudioJungle
This way you are cutting an income from most of the bigger licenses! Big companies making >1mln broadcast products have a lot of cash to spend and treating them as youtube vlogers doesn’t have any commercial sense. And what about physical products?
Of course the BROADCASTER pays money, not buyer. @Sarah_G Please correct this, because it can be very misleading and not encouraging for buyers.
And surely this will kill marketplace. Instead paying hundred dollars you can get broadcast license (10 million) with less then a dollar. 
Positive example from ThemeForest:
ThemeForest items don’t offer support in Elements, which is a big deal and I would personally rather buy a theme for 60$, just to get the support.
I don’t see why would someone go to AudioJungle under these terms. 90% of what we sell are the “standard music” and “broadcast 1 million” licenses here and there. Doesn’t seem like a good deal, since the “broadcast & film” license is the only thing that’s left, and this is very rare…
I know I advocated Elements a lot here, but this is not handled well at all. I expected a lot better system and licensing terms.
There must be a way we can have Elements, and not completely kill AudioJungle!
(Youtube exclusivity is one of the ways to do that…)
Including ANY broadcast licenses for the standard Elements price is just totally unacceptable business behaviour for BOTH Authors and Envato. These clients should of course be routed to the tier licenses where they can be allowed to spend their money.
Question: How many serious long term composers have participated in the development of this Elements plan and how to handle PRO registered tracks? If none, then its time to include some.
The Elements licence should be only for streaming video (youtube, facebook, live streaming video services (like twitch) etc., excluding netflix and similar ), and streaming audio purposes (podcasts, internet radio etc.). Broadcast use is unacceptable.
This is probably one of the most important moments for audiojungle authors. I thought there will be hundreds of comments…and there is depressing silence.