I only read through the first page (of five) of comments.
Nobody in that first 20% seemed to realize (or bothered to point out) that the plagiarzation was duly admitted in the reply letter from the publisher. That is an out-right admission of guilt.
The publisher had every opportunity to read the notice of copyright ownership and contact the author to ask permission. They chose to not do so, and spend their resources to edit and publish that which did not belong to them and which they did not have any legal right to publish, let alone edit (for any purpose other than educational or personal use).
The tone of the letter excerpt signifies defiance and disrespect for both the law as well as creators of IP. There is no remorse, humility, or sense of accountability for their own behavior.
IANAL! Check with an attorney first! However, it seems to me that a DCMA take-down notice/request will affect ONLY the web content. The published, dead-tree content is irrevocable. That makes the DCMA take-down ineffective at this point.
Take 'em to court. Sue for damages, court-costs, a published (in the dead-tree magazine) apology (that is not hidden beneath a cheap-advertisement and reduced to small print on the third-to-last page), and for the insulting definition of your request for a $130 donation to a school as a "request(s) for monetary gain."