The report is an affidavit that has to be notarized. I always get things notarized at my bank, which is closed on Sundays. I also had several questions that I needed to ask, so I've been waiting on a response before I continue. There weren't any deadlines listed in my documentation, so I'm just getting it completed as soon as circumstances allow.

The one I did gave you a week.

SoCalMama,
These reports are very different from typical MS reports. The poster was not likely to find a handy notary on a Sunday!

@baconbits wrote:

Earlier in the thread you mentioned that it was possible to provide my arrival time at the location and my time zone, and that the event description could be written for me...is that how you prefer to handle the reports, or is it just something you offer to make the reporting a little less difficult for the shopper?

It is just an option if you feel uncomfortable doing it yourself. It is absolutely not an obligation or a job requirement. Honestly, it makes my job a tad bit more complicated, but either way is just fine.

@baconbits wrote:

I also had several questions that I needed to ask, so I've been waiting on a response before I continue.

Are those questions that maybe I can help answer? Even if you did not get scheduled through EDS, I can certainly help you figure things out. You can email me at recruiter@edlunddataservices.com.

Also, regarding the deadline, there really isn't one. They ask that you complete everything in a "timely manner" but that's it. The affidavit needs to be reviewed first, then you can print it and get it notarized. After it is notarized, you send it in and the company takes over. Since the process is a lot of back and forth at this stage, it would be ridiculous to expect shoppers to get things done on a rigid timeline. Your report getting in the mail depends on too many factors to have a deadline.

Let me know if I can help anyone here. I will be checking the forum regularly, but in case I am not fast enough (tons of editing today!), don't hesitate to email me.

Have a great day everyone!

"Earlier in the thread you mentioned that it was possible to provide my arrival time at the location and my time zone, and that the event description could be written for me...is that how you prefer to handle the reports, or is it just something you offer to make the reporting a little less difficult for the shopper?"

This is bad business on the part of the MSPs. Inexperienced people providing a notarized statement for PPV piracy, and having some other person write a description of the event is not a solid "hit." What happens if the notarized statement has to be redone? The credibility of that person is shot down. If the bar owner disputes the charges/fine there is too much leeway in their favor, i.e why did the notarized statement need to be rewritten; who wrote the description of the event (not good if it was done by a third party not at the location) and if it does go to court are you willing to testify? These are hefty fines, big enough to piss off a bar owner. You have been outed, they know who you are because you provided a notarized statement along with video. Many of these bars have surveillance and can match your face with your name and the car you drive. There are a number of legitimate ways to handle this type of sting, this is not one of them. Based on the fines that can be levied for piracy, the pay for this shop should be much, much higher considering you, the shopper, is taking on a tremendous amount of risk.

@Robroy wrote:

This is bad business on the part of the MSPs. Inexperienced people providing a notarized statement for PPV piracy, and having some other person write a description of the event is not a solid "hit." [...]

Robroy, I do not make the rules. I simply schedule the jobs.

Now, with that said, the shoppers do not just sign blindly something they did not observe. The only reasons an affidavit would be altered is for grammar/punctuation, and for a fight description that is not enough in depth. In those instances, the affidavits are corrected (a description of the fighter's attire for example might be added) and sent back to the shopper. The shopper then reviews the affidavit and decides whether or not they want to have it notarized.

At no point in the process is there any kind of obligation on the shopper's end to do something they are not comfortable with. I will always take the shoppers feelings and safety with the utmost interest and would never have a shopper do something they feel is not OK. That would be the fastest way to ruin my reputation, and frankly, I don't want that to happen!

As a matter of fact, several shopper could confirm that on Saturday night, they called or texted me that they did not feel safe and every single time I told them the same thing: I would never make you do something I would not do myself; so if you feel unsafe, there has to be a reason; and since I trust you, I probably would feel unsafe too. Therefore, leave. A $250 shop is not worth your safety.

One more thing: if anyone had a job scheduled through me for JRE, and the location ended up not showing the fight, JRE will reimburse all cover charges, and pay for any food/beverage you purchased while waiting for the fight.

Apparently, a LOT of places kept adverting they would show the fight until the last minute, but had no intention to actually broadcast it. So for this particular event, there were a few "duds".

If you job was scheduled with TA, I do not know how he will handle those instances.

I don't speak for TA but I had a "dud" on one occasion and he was very fair in reimbursing me for my time.

That is good to know!

"A $250 shop is not worth your safety. "

Edlund- I appreciate your effort on behalf of the shopper. I do have a tremendous amount of experience doing stings, and converting pirates to actual commercial programming licenses. However, once an affadavit is "altered" by a third party with other information not provided by the witness, the statement is useless. Also useless is getting video from across the street. Understanding your concern for the safety of a shopper while at the location, if they leave they wasted their time and not get a low fee for this type of assignment. The programmer lost an opportunity to get their fair share by using inexperienced people for this project. Here's another angle, let's say a shopper goes to a location that advertised the event and it ends up being a dud: How do you know the shopper did not receive a payment from the bar owner? From my experience a bar does not advertise a fight and not show the fight, that would anger too many patrons. No offense to anyone here but it has happened. Also, I understand you do not create the guidelines for this shop. However, this project is haphazard and not well thought out.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/04/2015 07:20PM by Robroy.

They way I understand it, the event description that is provided comes from the time of your shop, as well as the video you provide. It's not the MSC adding details the shopper didn't observe, but simply putting the observed information into the correct format. Not everyone is familiar with these kind of events, and writing a statement describing the match in appropriate detail is difficult if you don't know the correct terminology. The fact that it's sent back to the shopper to verify the information *before* it is notarized means that it is just as valid as any other statement that a shopper makes.

@baconbits wrote:

The fact that it's sent back to the shopper to verify the information *before* it is notarized means that it is just as valid as any other statement that a shopper makes.

That is my understanding as well.

However, I will not discard Robroy's comment. I truly appreciate the input and will do some research about this. I would never want to put anyone in a difficult situation due to the affidavit being "altered" before it is notarized.

As for the shoppers taking in bribes, I may be naive, but I like to think people who take the jobs would be fully honest. In any case, Robroy, thank you so much for your analysis of the shop/situation. Definitely gave me food for thoughts!

baconbits- You left the location before the main event, minimizing any possible fine/penalty to the bar since you did not observe the Mayweather v Pacquaio fight. What could you provide in terms of the description from your one minute video? Who was the undercard; What color robe was Lomachenko wearing; What was Santa Cruz wearing; How many people were in Cayteno's corner; How many rounds did either undercard go? Is that one minute of video sent to the "editor" of your notarized statement to add in detail that you may have missed? The statement required is straight forward, there is no need for someone else to embellish what you saw or alter your statement. Not a solid case.

edlund- Unfortunately not everyone is ethical/honest. In another thread about finding out of stocks, one experienced shopper suggested taking items off a peg hook and discreetly hiding them in another part of the store to achieve a found out of stock for the report. The pay on that shop was about $8, imagine what some will do to make an easy buck. Bribery in terms of programming piracy is not a stretch of the imagination. This type of assignment needs to be refined and reworked.

@Robroy wrote:

Who was the undercard; What color robe was Lomachenko wearing; What was Santa Cruz wearing; How many people were in Cayteno's corner; How many rounds did either undercard go? Is that one minute of video sent to the "editor" of your notarized statement to add in detail that you may have missed?

In my opinion with video none of this is needed. All I should have to say is "this video I took, when I said I took it, in the location I said I took it in." I do not have to know what the **** Lomachenko is wearing to video him boxing. I don't even know what this person looks like and shouldn't need to. There are experts who can watch what I video and testify that this is indeed the fight they should have paid for. That's what annoyed me about the job I did for Audit Masters.

I agree, bgriffin; the description of the event in the affidavit seems redundant since a video is provided. As someone with no experience in boxing, all I'll be able to do when I write that portion is describe exactly what's already in the video. I suppose redundancy can help verify that the information I'm providing is true and correct. In survey creation, sometimes the same question will be included multiple times with different wordings to help weed out fake responses...maybe this is similar?

bgriffin- Your annoyance is understandable. When a company seeks to impose a fine and possibly press criminal charges for something like programming theft, it is not like getting a parking ticket. The spotter, programming cop... has to have all the details in order to successfully prove the theft, including what the fighters look like. As mentioned before the fines can be over six figures, and in some cases enough to close down a bar/restaurant. You had said the changes requested from your experience with SA were your mistakes. It is understandable it was not worth it for you to complete the assignment. The fee for this shop for a number of reasons should be much higher. I have confidence that EDS will resolve some of the issues involved with this assignment.

I have no interest in this kind of assignment so I just quickly scrolled through. However, EDS scheduler you sound like a good person!

Robroy, if the shop were, say, someone pirating a Seinfeld episode, and I walked in and took video of them showing a Seinfeld episode, and then went to court over it, would I be asked things like what color pants Seinfeld was wearing in the episode? No, I would not. I would be asked questions about when and where the video was taken and other questions about the locale. I would not be asked what was happening on the screen as that would be entirely evident in the video. The video would be of a Seinfeld episode, the line of questioning would be when and where the video was taken. There should be no difference for a live event. In neither case should I be required to know or care about the details of the programming shown in the video, only details about when and where the video was taken.

bgriffin, the more important question is: Are you the master of your domain?

Again, I'm not speaking for TA, but my reports have been successfully accepted with just the undercard as it is part of the PPV event. Once the time of the PPV starts, and the FBI warning with the $250,000 fine appears, then you are in the PPV event.

Also, as Robert told me after I completed my first report for him, the affidavit does not support the video; rather the video supports the affidavit, meaning that the affidavit is the primary documentation and the video backs it up. Therefore it is required to say in the affidavit who was wearing what.

The first time I did this, the affidavit was about 2.5 pages. I started with the announcers providing the commentary and their descriptions [one was bald, the other had a bushy mustache]. The third announcer was pretty much average. I then gave the exact time of the start of the first round [my watch resets to the atomic clock each night], the description of what each boxer was wearing, and a short description of the first round. I stated the time I left and the report/video was accepted.

@James Bond 007.5 wrote:

the affidavit does not support the video; rather the video supports the affidavit.

If that's the case then it should be marketed like that instead of "just get some video and you'll get paid $250" as it seems to be marketed to shoppers. Those are two entirely different things, one of which I had interest in and the other that I absolutely did not.

bgriffin- You cannot compare apples to oranges in this arena, it simply does not work that way. If you have to go to court, the programmer is not going bring in an "expert." You are the expert in regard to the video you recorded, you have to be able to answer those questions. Apparently this assignment is not for most shoppers. Edlund was upfront about what was expected and seemed to provide the needed support for their shoppers on this assignment. EDS did not make it sound as if you just get video and you are good to go, far from it. Either way, for the few that qualify and are able to skillfully complete this assignment, IMO, the fee is too low.

James Bond-how did your sting play out? Did you get a hit?

@Robroy wrote:

bgriffin- You cannot compare apples to oranges in this arena, it simply does not work that way. If you have to go to court, the programmer is not going bring in an "expert." You are the expert in regard to the video you recorded, you have to be able to answer those questions.

That is EXACTLY my point. I should be the expert on the video I recorded. Where it was recorded, what time it was recorded, etc. The programmer's expert should be the expert on the stolen programming shown in the video. So I am there to say the video was taken in the establishment and what time, the programmer's expert is there to say that what is shown in my video is indeed their client's stolen property. I should not have to be an expert on both.

@Robroy wrote:

Edlund was upfront about what was expected and seemed to provide the needed support for their shoppers on this assignment. EDS did not make it sound as if you just get video and you are good to go, far from it.

Ok so in one post you say she is helping too much and it makes it an invalid affidavit and in another post you say she made it clear that there was more to it than just taking video. To me those two statements are at odds at one another. Can you explain? Sometimes I'm slow.

I agree that these shops are not for everyone. They really should be doing these with people who are both boxing fans and have legal or law enforcement backgrounds.

bgriffin- EDS offering to supplement/enhance/embellish the notarized statement was not a part of my assessment of the company's support to the shopper. The supplemental information is enough to invalidate the claim of the programming rights owner. Having to file a notarized statement should be enough of an indication of what your responsibilities are in this type of shop. You have to be able to back up what is written (and notarized) in that statement. If you go back and reread the EDS postings they were available by phone and text before, during and after this assignment. The expectations set out by EDS were specific and realistic. However there is not enough of a qualified pool of shoppers to accurately complete this assignment. Legal or law enforcement background is not necessary to successfully complete the shop. Again, the fee for this shop should be much higher and I believe EDS will work out the kinks for future shops of this type.

Just so you know, I am currently reassessing the guidelines for this job, as well as the expectations.

As a scheduling company, I cannot always make a difference. However, I took everyone's comments to heart and believe there is a better way to go about these jobs. I just have not figured it out yet. But with the help of your comments and experiences, I am sure I can find an acceptable common ground that will keep the shoppers safe, keep the job simple and fulfill all of the client's needs.

Wish me luck. ;-)

(And keep the feedback coming - I need it!)

There is no legal issues with altering an affidavit UNLESS it is done after it has been notarized. Once it has been notarized by an individual you cannot alter it in anyway. If you have a background in this then you should know this. Until an affidavit has been notarized and signed by the individual it's nothing but a worthless piece of paper.

@Robroy wrote:

bgriffin- EDS offering to supplement/enhance/embellish the notarized statement was not a part of my assessment of the company's support to the shopper. The supplemental information is enough to invalidate the claim of the programming rights owner. Having to file a notarized statement should be enough of an indication of what your responsibilities are in this type of shop. You have to be able to back up what is written (and notarized) in that statement. If you go back and reread the EDS postings they were available by phone and text before, during and after this assignment. The expectations set out by EDS were specific and realistic. However there is not enough of a qualified pool of shoppers to accurately complete this assignment. Legal or law enforcement background is not necessary to successfully complete the shop. Again, the fee for this shop should be much higher and I believe EDS will work out the kinks for future shops of this type.

Seriously? If you don't want to conduct a job that pays you in some cases hundreds of dollars per hour of work then I am not quite sure how to respond for this. I am positive that the fees are not going to change for this. I could schedule these for $100 all day long. $250 is to help people overcome a bit of comfort and because some nights are worse than others. I get it if it's not for you, but let's not pretend that $250 isn't enough money because that's just silly.

@petrohd wrote:

There is a company that does these kinds of shops....fairly new company....I almost did one a year and a half ago but decided not to because they wanted to send me to a place where I didn't feel comfortable going to or went to that often. Now I've noticed when they are looking for people that they mention what kinds of facilities that you might go to and they also are looking for certain people to do these shops so one doesn't stick out.

If I can find one reasonably close to my area and its a place I feel comfortable going into, I may try one.

This is exactly how it should be for everyone. No one should ever go into a place they feel for their safety. How far someone goes outside of their comfort zone is uip to the individual. I also highly recommend bringing a wingperson to these kinds of events. You can certainly afford to pay for their drinks.

You're right in that it could happen. However, you should probably look up the settlement rates. There's a reason that video is requested. These companies know they stole, if they try to fight it they are going to lose a lot more money and lose on top of it.

Ive done these for over three years and have interacted with people who have conducted several hundred of these. Not a single person I know has ever been contacted regarding this. It's sort of like winning the lottery, but everyone can assess that risk to themselves.

I know that I personally am not at all concerned with an under 1% chance of this happening. I know ive done over 100 of these myself right now and nada. Logically, who tries to fight something like this? They know they stole it.