(EDIT begins): The above paragraph is not only "not a good comparison," but a really bad comparison which entirely misses the point and argues against the below paragraphs (as jbooth's comment succinctly points out). It's only still here because I don't like deleting text I've posted; I still support most of it (especially it being common courtesy not to cause discomfort to your hosts, regardless of any regulations or laws regulating behavior), even though the basic idea is horrible. You should disregard it, and focus on the paragraphs below. (EDIT ends)

However, if you are going to get up in arms about the potential for noisy guests, and require legislation to prevent it in some way, it makes far more sense, to me, to empower apartment owners to kick out anyone who sublets an apartment to noisy guests, and allow legal recourse for the people in surrounding apartments if this does not occur. A system of incentives would thus be created for people renting out a spare room to make sure to educate their visitors about the behavioral standards they are expected to follow, and to enforce these standards. This would create greater freedom for everyone, and the owner of the building has the option of stipulating that short-term sub-letting is not permitted in whatever contract they have with their renters.

The problem of actual unlicensed hotels - a set of rooms lived in by no one but short-term renters - is entirely different, and is the problem which should be removed by legislation. It's also the problem which many of the people who are against AirBnB and similar sites are thinking of; there is a world of difference between a group of tourists given free reign in an apartment and one or two tourists renting a bedroom from someone who is living in and present in the apartment. This difference is perhaps why so many of the people who have tried such services are in favor of it; they have been in the latter situation, which seemed quite pleasant to them and which was completely preferable to hotels (all of the stories I've heard of users of such services describe this situation). The people who are angry about it (outside of the hotel industry) without actually coming into contact with it (short-term renting of the adjacent apartment, with whatever results) are thinking of the first situation.

Or at least, that seems to be the case, from reading many of the comments on this article. It's quite likely that I'm misunderstanding something, of course.

Dear god I read your entire post only to realize you entirely agree with the legislation that was just passed only you have no idea what the new law means.

You can let someone crash at your house if you're away, but you cannot charge.

(Also: previous comment edited to incorporate exactly how terrible the comparison was. It was really more of a jumping-off point for the rest of my musings ...)