`  I think this talk page is proof that there is not a community consensus to remove all mention of the number from this story.  Some people have had their edits deleted, or respected requests not to post the number pending a decision, but that's not exactly the same thing.  Nor is it unusual for Wikipedia (or any public communication) to operate on shaky legal ground - for example, every time a ``fair use`` image is posted.  The rationale for this particular restriction seems even more dubious than most, though - I just looked up the ``take-down notice`` sent to one of the original Web sites, which says, ``It is our understanding that you are providing ... and offering to the public a technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that is primarily designed, produced, or marketed for the purpose of circumventing the technological protection ...``  Now I don't know if that's true of the original site when the code was less well known, but by this point the encyclopedic value of including the code (for instance, so that editors can do a Google search for all 298,000 pages or subsets thereof to track its progress through the Internet and see what policies different Internet services are adopting) is far in excess of the circumvention value of the code (which has been revoked anyway, according to this article, and which is already so widely accessible that it is totally implausible that censoring this one site can stop a person from finding it and cracking a DVD using it if he is so minded and otherwise able to do so).  To claim that this encyclopedia page is primarily designed, produced, or marketed to crack DVDs would be utterly absurd.  `