Apparently they're writing specific norms for what and how they'll be usable legally (and most likely it'll require a license), but for now, it's a full ban.
My two newest ones both weigh in under 400g (a bit less than 1lb) ready to fly - fully loaded I could fly with 800 or 900g all up if I wanted to (they're a _lot_ less fun to fly loaded up like that though). They both use 5 or 6 inch props, usually plastic (though I do have some carbon fibre ones) which while they hurt a bit if you're careless are not super dangerous. I'd hesitate at calling them "mostly harmless" - you're right in that they're about as likely to cause damage in public as a baseball or frisbee - I think of them as about as dangerous as a kid on a bicycle.
A friend has a octocopter with eight 14inch carbon fibre props spun by 2kW motors which weighs in at over 6kg with all five cameras it usually flys with mounted.
Those _shouldn't_ be subject to the same rules - but the hobby/tech moves _way_ faster than the regulations, so while I disagree with it, I understand _why_ the restrictions need to first be based on the assumption that there are people flying unshrouded lawnmowers spinning blades capable of chopping heads off - because they _are_.
At least here in .au, there's strong evidence our local authorities are thinking about a graduated set of regulations (at least for "non commercial, hobby use"), where sub 0.5kg craft will be treated differently to 2kg and 5+kg craft.
That caution and care (in cooperation with an equally cautious NTSB) has created an airline industry in the USA that's 10 times per mile safer than driving in a car.
I shudder to think what air travel would be like if we had all adopted a "shoot first think later" attitude in the early days.
I don't know anyone who thinks the FAA should have no ability to regulate drones, but their unwillingness to draw limits for themselves is causing real problems. Noncommercial drones/model aircraft less than a certain weight and operating below 400 feet and not near an airport have always been legal. If hobbyists are safe to operate according to those rules for personal enjoyment, why should they be banned from operating under those rules for pay?
[edit: grammar]
Regulations follow the life with lag. AirBNB and Uber are most recent examples of "break the rules en-masse and thus force the rules change after". FAA will change their rules once a million drones will appear in the skies as they will just be not able to fine each and every aerial photographer. Until then it is just noise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuBSsBscRDU
I find interesting that people are more scared of the NSA and yet we have tons of people flying these around your neighborhoods and apartments and nobody bats an eye about your invasion of privacy.
As far as privacy goes, of course it's possible to violate privacy with a drone. But it's a lot more practical to violate privacy with a telescope or a camera with a zoom lens. The only thing a drone can get you is a shot of the roof or backyard, a really easy way to get spotted, and relatively short "mission" duration.
> definitely less than, say, a baseball hitting you
Is it not quite common to see "No Ball games" signs in public places? I've seen a fair few in the UK. Obviously that's not a law but it's there to stop people going to the park to drive golf balls across the football pitch.
"Hey, how about we have a game where we have one teenager fire a fast moving projectile through a space occupied by other teenagers?"
"Doesn't sound fun! Let's tell the other teenagers to get in the way of the fast moving projectile."
Only the US seems to plow ahead on the back of political bribes, expensive campaigning, and "energy independence."