Code Breaker: 'Girls Who Code' founder Reshma Saujani's Tech Revolution
'If at first you don't succeed, try, try again' is far easier said than done, yet if anyone's story exemplifies why we shouldn't let failure stand in our way, it's Girls Who Code founder Reshma Saujani.
From applying to Yale Law School three times before being accepted, to becoming the first Indian American woman to run for Congress, Reshma refused to let 'no' stop her from succeeding.
Saujani joins Liz to discuss how this tenacity ultimately led her to create the nonprofit Girls Who Code, which has now taught over 700,000 girls and women to code across the country. She shares how being the daughter of immigrants drove her to want to make an impact in America, the country responsible for saving her parents' lives after they were expelled from Uganda.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
5 hours ago
- Fox News
Q & Trey: Where Has the Shame Gone In Our Culture?
What will the political environment be like for the Republican Party after President Trump leaves the White House? And who will step forward to lead it? Are members of Congress able to attend meetings and vote after being censured, and how severe is the punishment? Trey shares his thoughts on these questions and more on today's Q & Trey! Plus, he explains why he's not so happy with Scottie Scheffler at the moment, even if he's still rooting for him. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit
Time Magazine
9 hours ago
- Time Magazine
The History of Music Copyright—Before (Taylor's Version)
Taylor Swift wrote a letter to her fans announcing that she had finally secured ownership of the original master recordings for her entire catalog. It's the culmination of her efforts to gain full control of the copyright in her work. Rights to her catalog—including hugely successful albums like Fearless, Red, and 1989 —were purchased by a music industry mogul without her consent in June 2019. Although her legal team was unable to stop the sale, Swift won the high ground in the court of public opinion by arguing that such an action was morally wrong. In the process, she has achieved something unique in the history of American popular music. The pop star's efforts to control her master recordings has been an element of her ongoing advocacy for artist rights. The intricacies of publishing, licensing, and rights ownership in the modern music industry are quite complex. Though copyright may be law in one sense, public perception and popular opinion effect how the law is enforced in practice. The history of American popular music shows that the degree of agency an unsigned artist has to negotiate terms with industry representation can be profoundly affected by their class, race, and gender. Very few artists will ever reach the level of popularity and profitability that Swift enjoys, but by raising public discourse about music copyright she has helped to reinvigorate conversations about the value of music. Copyright protection for 'Authors and Inventors' is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, which highlights the importance the framers placed upon encouraging creativity and innovation. Congress passed the first copyright act in 1790 protecting any 'map, chart, book, or books,' which allowed authors the sole right to profit from the sale of their work for a limited time after which it would enter the public domain. Congress expanded copyright in 1802 to account for new advances in print technology and visual mediums. Interestingly, sheet music, which had existed for centuries, was not added to the list of protectable mediums until 1831. In truth, there was relatively little music generating revenue for copyright to protect in early America. That began to change when a 20-year-old Stephen Foster composed 'Oh! Susanna' in the late 1840s. The song was an unprecedented hit, selling well over 100,000 copies in multiple editions. Foster failed to properly register and protect his interests and made next to nothing off the song. Despite enjoying numerous fair and favorable contracts throughout his career. Foster never learned how to capitalize financially on the public success of his songs and he died penniless in 1864. The popularity of Foster's songs demonstrated that there was money to be made in American music, and publishing houses observed how songwriters could be easily taken advantage of in the process. Beginning with Tin Pan Alley at the turn of the 20th century, the music industry professionalized rapidly. Composers and songwriters, despite creating the product that generated income, became increasingly separated from the business of music. Record label executives, music publishers, lawyers, agents, and other professionals handled the paperwork and managed the money. While some songwriters like Irving Berlin also learned the business side of music, such cases were the exception, not the rule. Consider the career of Berlin's contemporary Woody Guthrie. Guthrie did not have access to the kinds of industry support more mainstream artists had, but he did have access to his local library. In 1937, he researched the copyright registration process on his own, sent in the required documentation along with a one-dollar fee to register 'California!,' and even asked the Copyright Office to send guidance about registration best practices. The Copyright Office responded promptly with an official registration certificate for 'California!,' several blank application cards, and instructions for how to optimize future registrations. This process was time consuming, however. Guthrie's transient lifestyle and prolific output meant that much of his catalog was not registered or managed properly. The copyright claim in Guthrie's most famous song, ' This Land is Your Land,' has been contested by artists and content creators looking to use the song in new ways. Rather than to maximize profitability, Guthrie's heirs have used copyright primarily to keep the song from being appropriated by commercial and political interests that are in direct opposition to his worldview. The key ethical question of copyright, like so many areas of the law, is not just about what rights are granted. It is about how the power granted by those rights gets wielded in practice. Over the course of the 20th century, many popular musicians like Chuck Berry and John Fogerty signed away their rights early in their careers, missing the full financial rewards when they later made it big. For many, accepting unfavorable terms had been their only option to break into the industry. Fogerty was famously sued by his former label and bandmates for sounding too much like himself when he went solo in 1972. Fogerty recently announced that, at the age of 80, he will be recording a (John's Version) album of his Greatest Hits, in a nod to Swift's success with the strategy. Before Swift's triumph, Prince is probably the artist who most skillfully used cultural influence to leverage their rights. When his label claimed a trademark in the rights to his name and all music marketed under it, he changed his name to an unpronounceable symbol until his contract with them expired in 2000. Similarly, much of Swift's success has come from relying more on public relations than litigation to assert her ownership. Inspired by a viral social media post from Kelly Clarkson, Swift began the process of rerecording her early work in November 2020. But that strategy only worked because she was also able to motivate her fans to choose (Taylor's Version) albums on streaming platforms and even to repurchase her rerecorded work on CD, cassette, and vinyl. Including bonus material and other incentives was certainly part of the strategy, but the level of fan involvement in policing the (Taylor's Version) transition has reached levels that are difficult to explain by marketing tactics alone. Swift's efforts to take legal control of her songwriting catalog have significantly raised the level of discourse about copyright law in popular culture. They have also provided a high-profile challenge to the trope of the struggling artist that has creative abilities but lacks savvy business skills. Swift's management of her career has been touted as a model to reduce the structural inefficiencies in music licensing and broadcasting, to promote equity sharing with record labels, and to give artists in general more control over their creative work. After her rerecording venture was so successful, some major labels have sought to add language to future contracts preventing that outcome. But to do so, they will have to navigate the fact that artists are more aware of the value that they bring in the post-(Taylor's Version) Era. Jason Lee Guthrie is an Associate Professor of Communication and Media Studies at Clayton State University in Morrow, GA. His research explores the intersections of creativity and economics, with a focus on copyright in the creative industries.
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Ex-Trump Aide Spells Out How Elon Musk Could Gain Ultimate Revenge On The President
Former White House communications director Alyssa Farah Griffin explained Wednesday why she believes tech billionaire Elon Musk could now actually 'tank Donald Trump's entire legislative agenda.' Griffin, a co-host on ABC's 'The View,' warned that Musk's vocal opposition to Trump's so-called 'big, beautiful' spending bill could sway Republicans in Congress, especially those worried about the consequences to their seats if they cross the world's richest person. Musk recently slammed the bill as a 'disgusting abomination' for how it will hike the national debt. He had previously staked his reputation on slashing federal spending in his now-ended role running Trump's unofficial Department of Government Efficiency. Trump, for now, has remained silent on Musk's criticism. Griffin, who served in the Trump administration during his first term, noted how the bill has measures on energy, border security and extends Trump's tax cuts. 'If Republicans decide, 'Oooh, we don't want to get on the wrong side of Elon,' that is what Donald Trump is banking it all on,' she continued. 'And that is kind of devastating for his administration.' 'On the flip side, those Republicans, if you're in a House district, you're like, 'I'm afraid of Donald Trump,' but Elon Musk, because of the dark money system we live in, he can come in and primary you by just pouring millions and millions into your race.' All Musk needs to do, she suggested, is 'peel off a handful of Republicans' to tip the balance of power in the House. Watch here: Critics Cackle Over Mike Johnson's Awkward Confession About Elon Musk Phone Call 'You Wussed Out': David Mamet Reveals Trump's 20-Minute Call After He Committed A MAGA Sin Critics Gasp At Trump Official's 'The Thing That Matters' Declaration
