Wait, why would you even need to protect unpublished writings? If someone takes something you've written but not published, laws against theft would be plenty to deal with that, no need to add another law on top just to muddy the waters.
You're assuming he reads the articles in the first place, which I'm fairly sure he doesn't do, as it would 'waste' the time he could spend ranting about the articles, the site, Mike, the color of grass, or whatever has his attention at the moment.
(Funnily enough, the first quote from that post is also from Wheaton v. Peters, but it most certainly does not imply copyright was merely recognizing a natural right, but rather created one that wasn't there before).
Anyway, in those articles there are these funny little things called 'links', they generally take the form of blue words, slightly more bolded than the surrounding text, and you can use those to go to the pages/articles that the TD ones are based upon, if you have a strong objection to reading the TD writeups on them.
Umm, no, it requires the US to show that they even have a case against him, and in particular one dealing with a crime big enough to extradite him over, and as their 'evidence' to date has been composed pretty much entirely of 'Trust us, we totally have a case, we just won't provide any evidence of it', NZ is completely justified in not just handing him over, especially as the USG conduct so far suggest he would get anything but a fair trial if tried in the US.
Fighting tooth and nail to avoid being 'tried' in the US isn't a sign of guilt, that's a sign of sanity.
Through this entire mess the USG has shown over and over that it was and is willing to bend, break or create any law it needs to to railroad him to a guilty verdict, and only a great fool would walk into that situation willingly.
For just a few of the many examples, try reading some of the following articles:
Probably because going to court would require them to actually present their evidence, and as they are still mostly at the 'IP address = person' stage, a demonstrably false way of identifying infringers, they know they'd be in real trouble as soon as someone computer savy was called by the defense to show how weak their identification methods actually are.
How about a trial in front of a judge and jury? Surely if the sites are guilty of the crimes they are being accused of, and the goal is justice, rather than stamping out potential competition, that wouldn't be an objectionable proposition, would it?
I mean, the only real reason I can think of to skip the 'trial' part entirely is if the sites aren't actually guilty, or at least guilty of all the crimes they are being accused of, and the ones making the accusations don't want such 'inconvenient facts' coming to light in a court room.
I must say, I almost envy you, it must be comforting to have such a focused level of paranoia, where you can blame all the evils of the world on one company, while completely ignoring anything and everything else.