UASes fall under the guise of "model aircraft" when operated as a hobby, but as soon as they're operated commercially, they're in their own, specifically defined class of aircraft, as clarified in 2007 (and linked in this comment's sibling).
That's why quadcopter video operators often employ humorous (and probably not legally workable) workarounds to sell footage into commercial projects - for example, flying "as a hobby" and then later selling "found footage" back to production companies, or renting some related-but-not-flying piece of hardware like memory cards to the production company at an exorbitant rate (which is really the cost of flying the drone).
EDIT: Oh, and 'baddox above reminded me that there's question as to whether any of the FAA's regulations about what is and isn't a model aircraft are enforceable, since they seemed to do an about-face about what counts as a model aircraft as soon as UAVs came onto the scene.
One court and most observers said no, the FAA can't suddenly decide some things are model aircraft and some aren't based on whether or not they're used commercially ( http://www.dronejournalismlab.org/post/78814729933/judge-rej... ), but the FAA appealed and based on my understanding their appeal means the ruling isn't in effect.
Regulating a commercial RCPlane or Multicopter, is it not just a way to extract more cash? No matter what training you have to go through if the aircraft is coming out of the sky its coming out of the sky. Now I know you can try to mitigate it with teaching but the hundreds of things that can go wrong with these aircraft is spectacular.
In the uk when doing commercial flying tests your meant to bring the aircraft you aim to fly along with you, what happens if you have loads of aircraft and are a seasoned hobbyist wanting to make money from your passion? You can get around it, do something for someone and just tell them to keep it hush and make a donation to you in some way.
Flying over densely populated areas, around other aerial operations, and over property is obviously more dangerous than flying in the middle of nowhere - there are approaches to risk mitigation that aren't "teach people how not to crash."
I think these should be regulated, even though I own and fly several quadcopters and fixed wing planes regularly. Model aircraft have gone well in the US for the last 30ish years because people tend to self-regulate and the hobby hasn't been very big. Now that every Silicon Valley joker wants in on a perceived gold rush and DJI Phantoms work well and are available for a relatively low cost, hobby flying is moving into dangerous populated areas and the density of R/C craft is increasing.
I don't trust the FAA to correctly regulate these, and I see a very depressing day where I won't be able to fly as a hobbyist, but I also see an unregulated future where regulation-skirting companies (maybe they'll "crowdsource drone pilots" or something similarly "sharing economy"-esque) accidentally hit people with drones and basically say "so sorry, sucker!"
As for your latter point, that's basically what happens here, too. Lots of TV and commercials are filmed using drones, but the production company either sells the footage as "found footage" or rents out some non-drone piece of equipment (camera, memory card, etc.) from a drone owner at an exorbitant rate with the understanding that the rest covers the drone rental.
Why don't you expect the FAA to "correctly regulate" drones? They've done a great job regulating commercial passenger and freight planes, leading to an excellent safety record for these vehicles.
I believe they'll err too far on the side of caution for small drones, stifling potential innovation by requiring expensive airworthiness certification, ADS-B, and flight planning for all drones which fly beyond line of sight, even those which are small enough not to pose a major threat to commercial aviation or bystanders.
indicates that they plan to implement these requirements for all drones which aren't sUAS with a line-of-sight requirement.
I believe these drones should be authorized for testing and commercial flight over unpopulated areas below 500ft and possibly above in certain airspace classes - basically, that the existing, frequently ignored hobbyist "recommendations" should be enforced as "rules" and applied commercially.
If we put outselves in FAA's shoes, if they're too un-restrictive against drones now they run the risk of letting the situation get out of control in the future. As a thought exercise, how would the recommendations be enforced? Once drones are accepted as common transportation agents, how do you identify the one skipping the recommendations and, more importantly, who is flying it?
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/model_aircraf...
UASes fall under the guise of "model aircraft" when operated as a hobby, but as soon as they're operated commercially, they're in their own, specifically defined class of aircraft, as clarified in 2007 (and linked in this comment's sibling).
That's why quadcopter video operators often employ humorous (and probably not legally workable) workarounds to sell footage into commercial projects - for example, flying "as a hobby" and then later selling "found footage" back to production companies, or renting some related-but-not-flying piece of hardware like memory cards to the production company at an exorbitant rate (which is really the cost of flying the drone).
EDIT: Oh, and 'baddox above reminded me that there's question as to whether any of the FAA's regulations about what is and isn't a model aircraft are enforceable, since they seemed to do an about-face about what counts as a model aircraft as soon as UAVs came onto the scene.
One court and most observers said no, the FAA can't suddenly decide some things are model aircraft and some aren't based on whether or not they're used commercially ( http://www.dronejournalismlab.org/post/78814729933/judge-rej... ), but the FAA appealed and based on my understanding their appeal means the ruling isn't in effect.