Melanie, I am with you. When I get a tutorial I make just enough of the beads to figure out my own take on the technique. Sure, I'll put the beads out for sale -- but if, to me, they have not yet become MY beads, I always note that to buyers: "This one is a learning piece from a tutorial by so and so," or "I learned this in a demonstration by the talented and generous so and so."
I feel the same way about other related art forms. If I use a tutorial bead in a jewellery design, I point it out; if I make something based on a book or tutorial, I credit the artist. (Right now I have my own brand of spinner rings, but I made a lot of Kim St. JEan's riveted rings, and I have told the purchasers of every one of them about Kim!).
As an academic, I consider honesty about work based on tutorials versus my own designs to be the intellectual and moral equivalent of citing my work properly. I can quote someone directly, in which case I have to put the author's words into quotation marks AND cite it, or I can paraphrase / reference a specific fact or idea, in which case I cite it. Making THE tutorial bead (well enough to consider selling it) is the equivalent of quoting and citing. Making a bead strongly influenced by the tutorial style but with my own quirks is a paraphrase, which means I STILL have to cite it!!! Making my own design is writing from my own data.
There's a serious case to be made for copying as a learning technique. I recently went on a dot safari, and spent some time making my own "Bollywood" beads, aka Amy's lovely work. THOSE went to Beads of Courage, as I intended from the start. As Melanie said, there's nothing legally wrong with making copies ... but there is a difference between a skilled copyist and an artist, just as there is a difference between a scribe and a writer.