Seems to me that Tony's major "sin" is the desire to be scholarly and use
the "authorized" edition -- the Glasgow one to which we all defer (but which
appears to be copyright protected). If he had been less scholarly, he could
have avoided the fee.

"Fair use" clauses allowed scholarly uses of copyright material at a low
price and charged significantly more for commercial uses. Now it appears
there is no difference between commercial and scholarly (at least published
scholarly) uses and fees everywhere.

I'd be tempted to use less scholarly versions, and indicate any relevant
textual changes in the endnotes (as someone else in the discussion
suggested). But then I might be called to task by my scholarly reviewers!

Ross Emmett