Many content providers have been embedding access and management tools to protect their rights and, for example, prevent illegal copying. We believe that they should be able to continue to protect their content in this way. However, DRM does not only act as a policeman through technical protection measures, it also enables content companies to offer the consumer unprecedented choice in terms of how they consume content, and the corresponding price they wish to pay.
Since DRM security continues to be a joke, it does nothing of the sort.
Whoever wrote the response is even confused about the legal basis of protection for DRM. They have included a link to the World Trade Organisation's page on TRIPS, which has nothing to do with DRM. I assume they confused TRIPS with the World Intellectual Property Organisation's Internet treaties, from which anti-circumvention laws like the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the EU Copyright Directive sprang. Whichever No.10 policy wonk wrote this could do with a quick refresher on IP law before they make any other mistakes.