I love the Potterverse, or how I don't really hate JKR

I am putting together a guide to the HP fandom for some friends of mine, and of course, I had to touch upon The-Case-Which-Shall-Not-Be-Named. In my search to find good info on both sides (I don't presume anyone should take my POV simply because), I stumbled upon the Leaky Forums and have gotten myself all worked up again. It reminds me a bit of this entry that dealt with real-life politics, and not the ones of the fandom.
I found these 3 questions posed by rotfang07 on part 14 of the WB/JKR vs. RDR forum that I would like to respond to.

1. How can you believe you are a fan and simultaneously go against Jo Rowling's wishes?

Because I am not necessarily a fan of her, but of the world she created. I don't know JK Rowling. I know her work. Just because I love what she has made doesn't mean that this should transfer to the person. I think many people have forgotten this in the entire lawsuit hubbub. Yes, it was her decision to challenge the printed Lexicon. She has the right to do that. But (and I am guilty of this as well), why must we be on "her" side or "his" side? It isn't personal! It's a lawsuit. The only people who this should personally affect are people who personally know the plantiffs/defendants/people affected. (And let's not forget that Steve was not actually a defendant.)
I am not "anti-Jo", as so many have accused. I am of the opinion that the law should allow something like this to exist. This is based on research and my personal feelings about copyright and IP. If my husband decided to pursue this same type of lawsuit, I would disagree with him, too. It's not about how I feel about a woman that I've never met; it's about how I feel about the legality of the issue. The people who have contributed to splitting the fandom are the ones that don't see this as a legal issue, but rather, a personal one. It's become "fanning fans", by choosing which "superfan" you want to side with.

Here's the thing. I love the books, of course. But I also love fanfic, fanart, and Wizard rock. These are not things created by her, but rather, inspired by her. All of these things could be called into question as well. Now, I'm sure we could argue about whether wrockers/ficcers/artists make (or could make) the same amount of money as the Lexicon has the potential to do, but I thought this was not about the money. From her testimony, I was under the impression that she wants to have control over her world (again, something she has the right to defend). I also understand that she can pick and choose what to pursue as a violation of her control, and that since she hasn't done so yet for these things, she probably won't. I'm still a little concerned.

2. How can you maintain loyalty to two apparently contradictory goals? i.e. publishing the LM and placating Rowling and/or fandom.

By doing exactly as I explained above - not making it personal. People disagree all the time and still manage to be friends, lovers, coworkers, etc. Why can't we as a fandom say, "this is not about me, but I have an opinion"? And then constructively discuss from there? At its root, this is politics, pure and simple. People get angry about politics. People take sides. People avoid discussing it because it can turn the best of friends into enemies. Why hasn't anyone stood up to point this out?

Of course, I'm sure this is just like saying that Democrats and Republicans should just get along as well. What can I say? I'm a Libra, through and through.

3. How can you apparently believe one thing at one time and apparently believe the opposite the next?

How can you ask the same question three times, making all 3 sound accusatory and causing me to become defensive?