Okay, so the internet is destroying our children's lives, the journalism industry and the way we relate to one another. But, for if you're in advertising, the internet is awesome because you can assign users to generate your work for you.

That's what Quiznos did, asking users to make ads that “a comparison between Quiznos and Subway with Quiznos being superior” in the fall of 2006. We're split on the issue. They're both kind of gross, but for an ironic Valentine's Day, we prefer Subway.

The video below didn't win, but gets to the heart of what's wrong with user generated video. Namely, they all seem to be shot in New Jersey.

Subway, sick of having its good name tarnished on the internet, is suing Quiznos and iFilm, the site that hosted these videos, for libel.

Based on our long-standing fear of becoming a lawyer, it seems like Quiznos is involved in conspiracy to libel, which is like hiring someone to kill your ex-wife. It's not legally as bad doing the job yourself, but it's kind of a pussy move. Or to site some cases:

The Subway/Quiznos case hinges on how the District Court of Connecticut interprets two federal laws: the Lanham Act, which dates to the 1940s and centers on trademark rights, and the Communications Decency Act, which was passed in 1996 to safeguard the Internet. If Subway wins, advertisers and media companies may find themselves libel for false advertising claims made by consumers who participate in their contests.

The case will go to the federal district court in Connecticut in 2009. If Subway wins and Quiznos is found libel for slanderous ads it encouraged its customers to make, unemployed high school graduates won't be able to kill time making ads for companies. And advertisers will come to know the wrath of Web 2.0.