Talk:Vimeo

Untitled

It doesn't even have a full-screen mode! 144.133.74.239 14:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Relationship to google? You can access videos of vimeo via video.google.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.135.67.127 (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Moved from article

== Technology == Vimeo uses the [[Amazon S3]] service to store the video content and the [[Amazon_Elastic_Compute_Cloud|Amazon EC2]] to convert the uploaded videos into [[Adobe_Flash|Flash]] movies for the embedded player. Users have the ability to download their originally uploaded videos directly from [[Amazon_S3|S3]].

I removed this as the Vimeo blog states that they use thier own servers for hosting and encoding, with no mention of S3 or EC2. The above needs referencing before being put back into the article. Dan100 (Talk) 11:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• S3 portion confirmed: [1] --Jack Zhang (talk) 07:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Polemics

I feel the Polemics section is negatively biased and while many popular websites have "sketchy" terms of service, no other article show this section. I suggest it be removed --Ncusa367 (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Every video website I looked at has similar terms, and this paragraph makes such an essential business protection seem terrifying and malicious. --Jamiew (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Polemics section can be removed.Freiwilliger (talk) 08:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I put back the polemics section under the "terms of service" title. Most people don't realize they are leaving their rights to vimeo when uploading a file, you have to dig into the unreadable terms of service to figure that out. emphasis should be done on this, and wikipedia is exactly the right place for this, and this should be also there for other similars popular websites (youtube) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.99.199.172 (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

TOS

Regarding the current edit war about the TOS, it clearly states that (emphasis added):

"For any Submission that is a video, the licenses granted by you herein shall terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete such Submission from the Site. You understand and agree, however, that VIMEO may retain (but not display, distribute, or perform) server copies of Submissions that have been removed or deleted, and that VIMEO shall have no obligation to attempt to remove from distribution any of your Submissions that are videos that are otherwise publicly available through the Internet or other publicly accessible medium.

So, 84.99.199.172 (talk · contribs), please stop pushing for your POV on the issue. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

this is not my POV, this is vimeo TOS, and I don't see then why the section 'Gaming videos deletion' should be there.

it means it's important for someone that read the article that vimeo does not authorize upload of video games video, but it's not important to know that when you upload a video, you give to vimeo so much more than your video ? it makes no sense to me.

and when vimeo state that the lincense granted shall terminate within a commercially reasonable time , reasonable means nothing. someone could argue that 20 years is reasonable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.99.199.172 (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The point here is that if Viemo's TOS are indeed unfair you need to prove it using third party reliable sources. If no such source exists then your comments on this issue don't belong to Wikipedia, no matter how right you are. See in particular the first line of Wikipedia:Verifiability - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" Laurent (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

After making some research : google 'vimeo terms of service', we can see that this TOS issue is something that vimeo users are taking seriously, as the previously known facebook TOS issue (that is mentionned on the facebook wikipedia article, criticism section). I believe this should be mentioned in the wikipedia article. this is not my POV, so if nobody has objections, I will add a paragraph on this.

Please can you provide the sources you've found? Note that forums, blog entries and in general self published content cannot be used as sources. Laurent (talk) 10:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

10% in HD

I found a source for the un-cited "10% in HD"

http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/09/17/vimeo-now-hosting-one-million-videos-10-in-hd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.171.0.140 (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This one is better: http://vimeo.com/blog:152 Somebody please implement this, I don't understand all that crazy ass formating. Pyxzer (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

"video-centric social networking site"?

Vimeo is more similar to YouTube than Facebook or MySpace. We refer to the former as a "video-sharing website" and the latter as "social networking" websites, and I plan to change the lead sentence if there are no objections otherwise. --Jamiew (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Banned countries

Vimeo is banned only for 2 days in Turkey. It is available now. --Heamsi (talk) 01:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Is Vimeo still banned in China? Unlike Youtube which seems always to be banned, the situation regarding Vimeo seems to vary DigHK (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Vimeo is available in (at least)Shenyang and Dalian(I haven't tried in other cities).--Kaileeslight (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Vimeo wasn't the first video sharing site to support High Definition.

"On October 9, 2007, Vimeo announced support for High Definition playback in 1280x720 (720p), becoming the first video sharing site to support consumer HD." I'm pretty sure Stage6 allowed 1080p HD in 2006, which is why the site was so mind blowing for its day Hammerfrog (talk) 08:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

What does the documentary have to do with this?

Talking about Vimeo being banned in Indonesia, the article says, "The ban came at a moment when films made in Indonesia had begun to attract attention on the world stage, with Joshua Oppenheimer’s The Act of Killing joining the ranks of the most acclaimed documentaries of all time."
What's the relevance of that statement to Vimeo being banned? I'm sure that many other things happened in the world--and in Indonesia--at that time; why is this one significant? Is the statement meant (as I suspect) to raise some sort of irony? To get the readers to think the "right" way about the ban? If so, I don't think it belongs in Wikipedia. Uporządnicki (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Typo?

"As 22 July 22, 2010, the site offers unlimited HD embeds.[21]" appears to be a typo. Should it be "As of July 22, 2010, the site offers unlimited HD embeds.[21]"? Espensj (talk) 05:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Inaccurate information regarding Vimeo's premium packages

"In July 2006, Vimeo Plus launched for $44.95/year. It featured 250 MB of disk space weekly."

I don't know where this information was sourced from but it is incorrect. I have worked at Vimeo for 9 years starting in 2007 and there were no paid membership packages at all at that time. The first offering of a paid membership (Vimeo Plus) wasn't until October of 2008. https://vimeo.com/blog/post/presenting-vimeo-plus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sockyunghong (talk • contribs) 23:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Vimeo quality settings

This will be moved to the main page shortly.

Playback setting	Video resolution	Video bitrate	Audio bitrate
360p	640x360	0.5 Mbit/s	128 kbit/s
540p	940x540	1.5 Mbit/s	256 kbit/s
720p	1280x720	2.5 Mbit/s
1080p	1920x1080	5 Mbit/s
2K	2720x1440	7 Mbit/s
4K	4096×2160	18 Mbit/s

--LABcrabs (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

«Disk space» ?

«..limited to 20 MB of disk space weekly..» What does disk space weekly mean? KjellG (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)