 I was trying to think when I first heard of public knowledge, and it kind of seems like I've always been there, like, you know, as if they predated the universe or something. We all came to the joint realization that there was a void in Washington advocacy and thinking about copyright and internet issues. As information becomes central to everybody's lives, we need to have a countervailing force that can talk about the public interest rather than just the corporate interest. One foundation program officer said, well, what's the wow factor? I don't get what the wow factor is. Public knowledge has to exist because without it, we don't have a public voice in these titanic questions of communications policy and information policy. Public knowledge is an organization that is trying to educate lawmakers and educate politicians about what it means to actually use the internet as a consumer today. They represent the voice of people who don't have a lobbyist in Congress. It turns out that that law-making process, there's a science and an art to being involved in the law-making process, and you can scream all you want, but unless you know how to deal with Washington, you don't have an impact. It's important that public knowledge be there as a recognized entity that doesn't have a financial interest in the outcome. Their interest is the public's interest, and to have that kind of reliable word is very, very helpful. You would always see public knowledge making the right statement on every issue that I had a concern about. There are really good geeky, tech-savvy communications policy and internet policy think-tank lobbyist outfit on the Hill, who always seem to be exactly where they're needed. Public knowledge is really a one-of-a-kind organization. They are the ones that are in Washington, DC, representing the consumer's point of view on these digital copyright issues, which increasingly are defining our interaction with all kinds of culture. It's not like Superman where they show up and punch everybody out or anything, but they're kind of like this constant force for good. This is the do-gooder group that focuses on technology and understands without an ideology that it's important to preserve public access to information exchange. I think there's a certain kind of person who perceives the imbalance in power around an issue that's important and says, someone's gotten to get involved, it better be me. There have been many times in hearings that I thought, oh boy, I'm so glad they're here. We've got to do something about it. And I said, I'm on the public nudge board, read the issue. And they're like, and they give you a hug.