The patent is about DRM, as mentioned in the introductory paragraphs, and that is why this piece is in there.
Eh, which "introductory paragraphs" are you referring to here? The only places in the patent document itself where I find DRM mentioned are in the titles of a number of subsequent patents referring this one from 1995, but nowhere in the original claims. While it's certainly the case that the "encryption table" was intended as a component in some DRM scheme (the "consumer code" hints in this direction), I don't see the patent being limited to that particular application. Thus it's not a patent on streaming music with DRM, but a patent on streaming music with encryption.
Now, I agree with your assertion that this patent may not be quite as broad as the article suggests, but it's still fairly broad. I actually think it's good that the claims don't mention DRM, because I view that not as a technical concept, but as a legal construct that really can't be "implemented" due to fundamental aspects of information theory (which say you can't control how any information is dealt with once you have sent it to an untrusted recipient). All encryption does is to prevent third parties from eavesdropping on the stream and enjoying its contents, and it won't even do that if the decryption key is distributed in an unsafe manner or can be obtained by other means.
While I'm far from an expert on cryptography, I think I understand it a little better than I understand U.S. patent law, but I don't consider an "encryption table" a meaningful explanation of the algorithm used. If that part of the claim is considered significant, then essential information seems to be missing here (or perhaps it's elsewhere in the documentation; I haven't read all of it).
But if actually any kind of encryption would satisfy this claim, then it's quite broad, and it has nothing to do with DRM. As for whether it covers SSL/HTTPS streams, I suppose that may depend on whether the client ("consumer") is authenticated, and not merely the server.
I assumed that this cable was one of the many that where released all at the same time and someone digging through them just found it recently. Please correct me if I am wrong.
No, Wikileaks has been publishing batches of cables at regular intervals to maximize news impact by giving people time to read them, and we expect this particular cable (Stockholm 09-141) to be published sometime in the future too, to confirm what we have now is not just a forgery. Because, it hasn't been published by Wikileaks or its cooperating news media partners yet, not in its entirety. Swedish television broadcaster SVT has published excerpts from this cable, but not all of it.
Instead, what Pirate Party MEP Christian Engström and party leader Rick Falkvinge have published on their own blogs is a cable appearantly leaked to them via non-public channels. As neither Engström nor Falkvinge intend to reveal their source (it's not even clear whether they themselves know who their source is), we are left to speculate. It could be one of Assange's colleagues, of course, Assange himself being a bit tied up with the court proceedings in the UK. Or it could be someone else.
In any case, leaking this cable to Engström and Falkvinge for them to publish it over the Christmas weekend, when the general public is most occupied with shopping, severe weather conditions, impact on travel and celebrations, must be the worst timing ever, at least if you expected news headlines.
I guess the reason for leaking it to Engström and Falkvinge is instead to provide our party with a preview of things to come, since we have a specific interest in these issues. We were active in Sweden before Assange considered relocating here, so if there is a connection between this re-leaked cable and the legal fallout from Assange's visit here in August (when the Pirate Party signed a deal with Wikileaks to provide server capacity), it's probably the other way around from what the honorable AC suggests. Who should the Stockholm cable have been leaked to instead, the Pirate Party of Switzerland?