When you rent out a space there are laws designed to protect the renter, and many leases have clauses prohibiting subletting. Odds are many of these laws/contracts are being broken, so what do you expect?
Because it's an internet start-up you're allowed to break the law?
Because it's an internet start-up you're allowed to break the law?
Well yes, that's what they're saying. "Internet is different" is the very principle Amazon invoked to not collect sales tax for years. (I'm not saying I agree.)
Well at the time wasn't any law stating that Amazon had to collect sales tax where it didn't have a physical presence, that was up for debate. Unlike the laws that AirBnB are currently ignoring, that matter is already settled.
> "Internet is different" is the very principle Amazon invoked to not collect sales tax for years.
No, its not; Amazon sought to have legal rulings that had been applied to remote selling (by mail and telephone order) applied to remote selling by internet in exactly the same way that they had been applied to other means of remote selling.
It was exactly the opposite of "Internet is different."
Amazon claimed it had no physical presence in California so that they would fall under the existing laws. That's not true, though. Lots of Amazon employees work in California. They got very creative with the definition of "Amazon" and "employee" to make the claim.
When you rent out a space there are laws designed to protect the renter, and many leases have clauses prohibiting subletting. Odds are many of these laws/contracts are being broken, so what do you expect?
Because it's an internet start-up you're allowed to break the law?