Is there a way to split the difference in that one is a profit driven (questionably, maybe, at this point) paid service basing itself on the consumption of that copyrighted information, whilst the other had no profit incentive whatsoever and was also a private individual?

There's also the fact that the copyright owners in this case are pushing for trial, whilst in the Aaron Swartz situation, JSTOR was not.

Just in having written that out I've convinced myself they're not really comparable cases, where I kinda thought they were after reading your comment.

You have to be super careful about how insidious "both sides are the same"/"what-about"-ers can be with false equivalences.