I beg to differ if you are accepting money to provide a service then you are employed ergo an employee of the person providing the money.
buying a album in a store is like comparing apples to oranges, no direct payment to the musician. If I pay a musician to play and record a track for me then he is my employee and plays it the way I want, the rights to that track are mine.
A painter paints in my colors I am the employer
That is my view and I will do photographs for friends/family and there are no rules/laws to say one can not do this so moaning about amateurs undercutting you is like Ping in to the wind.
I don't give a damn what you do, because it won't affect me. I'm not complaining about amateurs. They can undercut me in price, but they also vastly undercut me in quality - which is the reason why I still have people that want my services. I own copyrights to whatever images I take unless there is a contract that specifies otherwise. Period. That's how this works - it's the law. You are hiring my services and expertise. You get a product. You do not get to copy that product however you wish. I HIGHLY doubt that if you hired a musician to play and record a track for you, that it would include the ability for you to take that track and copy it and sell it. If it would, it would cost a lot. Same with photography - if you want the copyrights, I'll certainly sell them to you - just be prepared to add another 0 to the end of the bill to get them.
I'm not saying that YOU can't give away your copyrights. You certainly can, and if you value your work that little, fine I don't care - again that doesn't affect me. But to think that professional photographers should do this as well is just ridiculous.