Never heard of him.
Oh this one's easy. Check Article 29.2 of the UDHR: "In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society." All UDHR Rights, if they were capable of judicial interpretation, are qualified. Besides, in the order of the articles, one can argue that even cultural life takes precedence over copyright.
I would be quite shocked myself that living on your copyright is a fundamental human right of gross importance.
"Google haven't been able to innovate a lot of the UI"
That's just a facet of first-past-the-post democracies.
There are actually democracies where it's virtually impossible to get a majority.
Nevertheless, this tactic of letting the highest court hear cases just because there are new and interesting points of law is stupid. Unless TPB has a lot of cash to burn.
If Google wants to "co-operate" and avoid this kind of shitstorm, they'd enter into agreements with content owners where they'd agree on what kind of limitations is acceptable, in exchange for giving them a break and not pressuring governments to act.
The bad thing would be that this is all settled privately, and not checked by some kind of "rule of law". You might not even be able to tell how they'd modify their search to support such agreements without studying search results all day...
The best argument against any democratic system is a 5 minute conversation with the 'average voter'. This seems little different in that regard.
And the worse part is then, you have to imagine that half of the voters are worse than that.