>> I think the greater point is that the FAA is meant to regulate aircraft, not the monetization button on youtube.

They have made the distinction before. If you build your own aircraft it can be certified as experimental. You can do anything you like with it that you might do with a Cessna, except commercial operations. I believe you can take a friend for a ride and split the fuel costs, but you may not profit. Why the type of plane matters is not clear to me. Likewise, flying a drone is legal, taking video is legal, why should profit from it be illegal? I don't know.

Simple.. put some mpaa music with your drone footage, and then the MPAA has youtube activate ads... wonder how that would work out. Or still, if I take amateur footage, and TMZ wants to buy the copyright to that footage, can I sell the copyright? It was still an amateur, non-commercial flight... wouldn't copyright law (constitution) trump FAA regulation?

But there's an even weaker argument for the monetized video distinction than the flying with a friend distinction, because the former happens potentially long after the flight even occurred. It's entirely possible to not even intend to monetize a flight video while recording it, and in that case, it's impossible for the subsequent monetization to affect the flight itself in any way.

It is possible to not intend to monetize a private flight but in any case it will be illegal to accept payment for the flight in the future.

And that scenario (if the legal status changes retroactively) is equally ludicrous.

The legal status does not change retroactively. If the flight was done according to the rules set out for private flight then you, as a pilot, are prohibited to make any money from it (with some exceptions). Getting commercial license will not allow you to earn money on previous flights that were done as a private pilot.

I would imagine profiting from experimental aircraft is forbidden mostly for safetly concerns, since you probably wouldn't want someone making a fleet of aircraft out of their garage and routinely selling flights with them. Certainly that aspect doesn't apply to drones tho, since there's no inherint safety risk that I can see.

There is though.

The potential for monetary reward for drone flights fundamentally changes the risks a pilot is prepared to take. If the conditions are marginal or if there's more people around than I feel comfortable with, I pack my gear up and go home. If there was a significant amount of money at stake in "getting the shot", I'd be _very_ tempted to push the limits further than I do as a hobbyist. If there was a large amount of money involved, and the risks of getting caught were low enough, it'd be very tempting to break the law to get the money. I choose to stay right out of that game for those reasons - but you only need to look at the paparazzi industry to know that when the money is right, people are happy to do impolite, dangerous, immoral, and illegal things to "get the shot". Even as a hobbyist multicopter builder/flier I'd rather not see "my hobby" being used that way - at least not without some accountability and consequences for people who choose to behave like that.

Does legality really matter if you are the point where money is the dominating factor? Funny you mention paparazzi...

Yes, because legal penalty becomes an expected cost of the activity.

I think the real point is that in the times of the internet the line between private and commercial use of anything becomes fuzzier and fuzzier. This is now a problem for the FAA because they rely on a clear distinction between the two, and they won't be the only ones who will stumble.

"Swarms of drone pilots could be flying and recording without the intent to monetize"

I'm not sure I agree with that. As someone who has flown RC Helicopters for a long long time, one of the reasons I haven't gotten more into drones is a) they are "to easy" to fly and get boring [1] (if you don't believe me try flying a 60 size Gas RC Chopper with no gyros) and b) I can't make any money right now because of the "no commercial" rule.

While I don't think people are flying drones to make practically nothing on youtube.com (I think they want to make cool videos obviously) the fact is if you are going to have a rule that says "no commercial" and it hasn't been further defined then you have to stick to that.

Separately, there is a similar quasi rule with regards to using a domain name for commercial purposes (re: Trademark and UDRP filings) and often a domain name owner will lose a case if they don't have a good attorney and if the opposing party is able to take the ads and say "they are making money from my trademark". The amount of the money they are making doesn't really enter that much into the picture.

[1] I bought an AR Drone which I "flew" exactly one time. It's similar to the difference, if you are a skier, between the bunny slope and a black diamond (and I don't mean an East Coast USA black diamond..)

An AR Drone is essentially a "toy class" quadcopter. It's understandable that it would quickly become boring. But as I'm sure you're aware, there is a lot more that can be done with more hobby-grade quadcopters with rate mode (no auto-leveling). And, like large RC helis, there is the whole other world of the electronics and mechanics that go into building, maintaining, and tuning the aircraft. That, for me, is perhaps even more of the fun than actually flying my multirotors.

That's a good point but I don't have any time to do those things (but it would be fun).

That said if you've never flown a gas rc you should give it a try (if you can afford it since they are typically more expensive than an electric especially when you crash and have to fix them..)

I could afford it, I just don't have the time (or car) to get somewhere in/near the Bay Area where I could fly one. Also I would be terrified.

It's as if FAA are jealous of the smackdown that FEC got in Citizens United, and would like some judicial abuse for themselves. It would be so much easier for the bureaucrats if there were a Department of Speech Regulation to which they could refer all these cases.

Not just Citizens United but 44 Liquormart is on point as well. There are five Supremes that don't hold much with commercial and political intentions as a backdoor to the First Amendment.

What the other four are thinking is beyond my ken.