The group later dubbed themselves "First Fandom" and declared goals that went beyond simple enthusiasm. "They believe that there is nothing greater than human imagination, and the diverting of such imagination into constructive channels," wrote "Amazing Stories" founder Hugo Gernsback of the group in 1934. "They believe that science fiction is something more than literature. They sincerely believe that it can become a world-force of unparalleled magnitude in time to come."

First Fandom's idealism may seem quaint today, but to Fandom.tv's Carol Burrell, it is the rule, and Fandom.com's commercial homogeneity is the exception. "I have all sorts of opinions about the participatory nature of television, how it can be considered the folklore of our times," she says. So-called genre fandom, therefore, promotes the view that all people have a stake in the storytelling, and corporate monoliths such as Fandom.com threaten not only individual freedom, but discourage the kind of creative discourse that has driven the fan community for decades.

"Once fandom was overwhelmingly optimistic and idealistic, perhaps too idealistic, with wild fancies about progress," wrote First Fandom member David A. Kyle in a 1986 Starlog magazine article celebrating the 50th anniversary of the group's inaugural convention. "For contemporary teenagers, there is a disturbing conflict between the visions of the naive past and cynical present." This discrepancy extends today to the Internet, where fans who find emotional resonance in genre entertainment watch their peers become increasingly co-opted by commercial organizations.

The evolution of Fandom.com may offer evidence that even its brand of midtier fandom proves that commerce and true fan sensibilities don't mix. Are Fandom.com sites really allowed to maintain their own originality and independence? That's something that Jane Carnall, a supporter of Burrell's campaign, has been wondering ever since her posts detailing the Fandom.tv trademark dispute were deleted from the Fandom.com message boards.

"I registered with Fandom.com on Nov. 21, 2000," says Carnall. "I posted a quick summary of the situation as it stood then to several message boards." Carnall returned the next day to find her posts removed and her registration revoked. She was miffed, but hardly surprised. "I've been in one kind of fandom or another since 1983," she says. "It's always impressed me, given what an anarchic and opinionated lot we all are, how much solidarity fandom has. We may seem to be a wide open and gullible market, but in fact we are merely ready to be pleased by what pleases us: not to be conned, and never to be bullied. I've seen some individuals, and a couple of organizations, make that mistake; Fandom, Inc. is just another one."

"In a way, [Fandom.com] is starting to remind me of the Borg," says Tim Hansen, who runs the independent "Star Trek" Web site Section31.com. "They won't be happy until they have everything under their control."

Hansen was first contacted by Fandom.com in January, when an angry e-mail arrived in his mailbox concerning a Ron Moore interview he had copied from Fandom.com and placed on his site -- a questionable but common practice. "I had credited them totally with link and title," he says. "To be honest, my site was getting nowhere near the traffic it is at this time, so this mail puzzled me. This was the first time any corporate news outlet had contacted me regarding a story I posted."

After visiting Fandom.com and finding, says Hansen, that sites included under its umbrella were also copying articles from other sources on a regular basis, Hansen grew annoyed. He prefaced the next installment of the Moore interview with his thoughts on the "corporate money hogging site."

Soon, another letter arrived. "The same person wrote back," he says. "He was mad I had gone public about the e-mail." Fandom.com's aversion to public disclosure of its actions appeared to highlight a breach between its outward, fan-friendly image and its actual corporate practices.

For Lynn Loschin, the lawyer representing Carol Burrell, Fandom.com's actions point to a larger and more disturbing trend affecting independent Web site owners. "We've heard a lot in the last year or two about 'cyber-squatting‚' registering famous trademarks as domain names for the purpose of reselling them for huge profits," she notes. "This is wrong and action has been taken to put a stop to it and to protect trademark owners. But we've heard substantially less about a parallel trend of wrongdoing -- 'cyber-bullying' -- by big corporations against individuals and small businesses."

Fandom.com, Loschin suggests, offers a classic example of such cyber-bullying -- and without any legal justification, to boot. According to the U.S. Patents and Trademarks office, Fandom.com's registration has the status "dead" and "abandoned." The company's claim on the word is tenuous at best, and to Burrell, symbolic of changing times. "Fandom.com feels a need to apply their own trademark and strictures on fannish activities," she says. "But what they want to restrict and trademark isn't even something they created themselves, but something created by fandom in general."

While Loschin feels confident about Burrell's case, she notes: "Not every smaller company has the resources to fight like they did, and a lot of them give up without a fight just because a corporation is bullying them. This is unfortunate, unfair and just wrong, and one of the reasons I wanted to help Carol."

But even if Fandom.com's legal threats prove toothless, for Burrell and other independent site owners who lack the monetary and legal resources to properly battle a cease-and-desist letter, such actions are often enough to put the survival of their sites in jeopardy. Additionally, Fandom.com's effort to shut down Burrell's site, as well as its aggressive pursuit and domination of other independent sites, works against all the diversity and independent spirit that characterizes genre fan culture.

As competing genre sites continue to merge -- recently, the Centropolis science fiction portal Mothership.com, home of Eon Magazine, was swallowed by Scifi.com along with prior acquisition Sci Fi Weekly -- the likelihood that individual site hosts can contend with corporate intervention dwindles. And since corporate entities like Fandom.com are primarily interested in profit, not fandom, the company's sites, say fans, are not only lacking in individuality, but also limited to only the most popular and merchandise-friendly of subjects. Meanwhile, sites like Burrell's, which cover a wide range of topics, some of them more cultish than mainstream, and which contain as much opinion as information, are fast becoming rarities.

"I hope that the Web, with its marvelous potential to give voice to individuals, won't turn into the private playground of companies," concludes Burrell, who has so far remained master of the Fandom.tv domain name despite a second legal threat (and an upped offer of $1,500).

"The Internet has made people aware that they are, in fact, part of something called fandom," says Burrell. "It has given the individual the power to shout out loud." But how long anyone will be able to hear those shouts, as corporations large and small press their claims on community feeling, is a question even the most fervent fan can't answer.

The Free Software Project
Read Andrew Leonard's book-in-progress on Linux and open source -- and post your comments.