This issue of passing on the cost has been discussed whenever Archos has sold plugins.
I look at it as totally on the up and up. I would rather not have Archos eat the cost, and if I want the plugin I have no problem paying for it.
To suggest that Archos is engaging in "shady" or illegal activity because of this is really crossing the line.
Show me where I said the word illegal ?
Nowhere because I didn't.
You did and what's more you may have a valid point
In the UK there are very specific laws regarding advertising.
Advertising a feature set without indicating in such advertising that certain features will cost extra is considered shady, in the UK.
If an advert for a car says it comes with alloy wheels it must be sold with alloy wheels.
If those wheels cost extra then that cost must -by law- be made abundantly clear in all advertising material.
Usually an asterisk * pointing a prospective buyer to caveats is sufficient but in Archos's case on that website they have failed to show that there is an extra cost if the user wishes to play certain content and that omission could easily be interpreted as a clear breach of the advertising standards authority rules in the UK.
Which is against the law. QED
The only caveat is a small 1 in the video playback which tells a user "1/ Certain bitrates, resolutions, and/or file variations may not be compatible."
The site doesn't mention that to play certain content you'll have to stump up another 5% on top of the purchase price and legally speaking, in the UK, they are obliged to do so.
Everything I've stated here is legally accurate, defensible, and easily verifiable.
Also, in the UK a legal decision was recently arrived at regarding user comments on websites.
The ruling - in brief - stated that if a user made a comment then the user was legally responsible for that comment.
If the site publishers altered the content of that comment in any way then the publishers became responsible for any defamation or libel contained in the comment.