Hi There.
I am pleased to know that a HUGE company has bought one of my items. http://audiojungle.net/item/pomp-circumstance/6087277
It is the British multinational newspaper - The Economist’. A paper and online web financial information provider to millions.
Yet they have only bought a smaill $8 licence for single user.
Is this right?
I guess it depends on what they are planning on doing with it.
The license needed has nothing to do with who the buyer is, but what they intend to do with the music.
Dissing your buyer in a public forum is a great way to secure further business.
Excuse me Purplefog, but your comment is not helpful nor insightful. You have nothing constructive to say or offer
This is a discussion about the morals of larger companies buying item for 1 single license what it is obvious the end use is for more than this single use.
Interesting Point, Inoixide.
I am a media content creator that, under my other invite account, has bought items for a lot of clients, I work for large conglomerates like NBC and TimeWarner and other small business.
I always ask clients on my pro forma to indicate the size of usage. whether small private corporate video or larger broadcast use.
I think you are right in the sense that it’s not too morally right for a large conglomerate to buy a single use $8 licence. Obviously the license is what it is used for, But anyone can imagine a large company like the Economist, is not a single individual buyer.
How do you know what they plan to do with your music?
All I’m saying is that the license cover different types of usage. Once you’ve found out how they used your music, then you’ll be able to tell if they chose the correct license, not before.
A lot of big companies shop for music on AJ. If you are not okay with that (which I can understand), well…
Have you considered internal use, or maybe a presentation?
Big compenies have many different things going on for them, not just the stuff that you get exposed to.
Plus, I’ll be honest, I’m not sure it’s a good thing for us authors to directly expose our buyers and the track and license they have bought, your next potential client might find it problematic.
Cheers
I don’t see him ‘dissing his buyer’
Personally, it’s fine if a single person or big companie buys an item for the same puprose. no problem there. Just thought that if it was for small use, it would be infdividual name rather than a company. And i just seems slighlty quirky the more i see big companies (who obviously would intend to use for wider broadcast audeince) buy a Regular standard licence.
And like i say, the thread is nothing to do with exposing authors. After all, it’s perfectly fine for Envvato to ‘expose authors’ in it’s ‘Hall Of Fame’ - and it’s okay for us to AJ show youtube videos of commerical adverts using our work!
All good 
There are two versions:
1) They need your track exclusively for their Youtube video or for small corporate video. In this case Regular License is a correct choice and they do not break any rules by doing that. They can purchase it using their company name and there is nothing wrong about it.
2) They (legally) need more expensive license, but actually purchased the cheapest one.
You’ve made a conclusion that exactly second variant describes your situation. But why? Just because they are big company?
One more thing. You said 8$. Maybe I’m wrong, but Regular license of your track should cost 19$. Isn’t it correct?
As a Brit, I"m afraid money is now a bit tight since we’ve Brexited 
I know it sucks but that is the micro stock industry for you, sometimes you win… Nice credit to have though 
Whatever it is for, 10 years ago they would’ve hired a composer and pay him at least 50 times more than 8 bucks. Krass difference. I’m getting goosebumps thinking what might happen in 10 years.
Doesn’t their name tell you everything? Economist? Economy…Economic…Rings a bell?
Maybe it’s a shorter track?
Yes that is kinda strange
Theres a link to the track in first post
Yeah I saw, fixed my reply accordingly!
Thanks for letting my comment look stupid
Fixed it for ya!
Could be they just followed your own description of the track?
"Unlike other commercially released sound recordings of this song, this particular version, should you choose to purchase it, is ROYALTY FREE – which means you can use this particular recording in any media you wish, for as many times as you wish."
I think it’s great that a paper called The Economist has spent $8.