A bigger concern is the problem of insurance.
Recent accidents involving a runner in a marathon in Australia (
http://www.runnersworld.com/general-interest/triathlete-hit-in-head-by-drone) and a spectator at a sports event in Virginia (
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2013/08/27/faa-investigates-after-drone-crashes-in-virginia/) which did not escape the attention of the FAA, by the way, underscore the very real risk of financial liability for the "drone" operator. Those who think their AMA insurance (specifically excludes commercial coverage) or home owner's insurance (again, exclusions for commercial claims) need to investigate further. Even normal business liability insurance needs to be carefully reviewed.
The RCAPA has made an association with an insurance carrier
http://aerialpak.com/ (follow the trail from the reference at
http://rcapa.net/), but check the details on this page carefully:
http://aerialpak.com/why-aerial-pak.jsp. Another company, Transport Risk Management (
http://transportrisk.com/uavrcfilm.html)provides typical quotes for premiums from various carriers between $2,000 and $6,000 per year, which is fine if you're a DOD contractor.
This is the next big problem and the FAA is making the problem worse with their hesitation to address UAV rules in a timely manner, which creates an added chicken-and-the-egg problem with regard to insurance carriers who can't cover "illegal" activities. (Try to clearly define "illegal" in the current environment, I dare you).
But get your hopes up too much because there's now pressure from another direction (
http://www.astm.org/COMMIT/SUBCOMMIT/F3801.htm) that could push the "standards" out of range for 95% of current UAV owners which, if adopted, could predictably result in the kind of chaos that pervades the world of Citizens Band radio.
Hang on tight, because it's gonna be a heck of a ride for quite a while longer.
PS: If a quadcopter falls on somebody does it hurt less if it's not being flown for a fee? Just wondering.