SOPA Compromise Proposed by Harvard Law Professor

I don't think a compromise on "anti-piracy" is a good idea. I'll illustrate with a small story.

Albert and Bertrand, two young boys, run into their mother's kitchen. A single, large cookie lies cooling on the table. Albert says the two boys should split the cookie in half, and each should receive a half.

Bertrand demands the entire cookie.

Albert and Bertrand's mother comes into the kitchen and settles the argument by splitting the difference: Albert gets one-quarter of the cookie, Bertrand gets three quarters.

How fair is that? Relative to Bertrand's demand it's "fair", but it's not fair on any kind of absolute scale. Unless Bertrand makes a case for getting more than his half, it's unfair.

Why should a SOPA compromise happen, just because some group asserts "Piracy is a problem" loudly enough and often enough? That's not at all moral.