This is not true. The only legal way to own a Nintendo ROM is to dump it yourself, directly from the cartridge.
Well you are right for most parts. Self-dumping ROMs would be a reasonable legal way (pretty hard to argue with that logic). However, there is no legal authority (a case or legislation) on whether you can or cannot play a back up of a game you own (back up game not being genuine).
The reason for complication is that you have a legal license to use/play the game. Since it is data, even though you have no license over the unowned game data itself is not just a physical ownership (it is a license to be use/play the data, not just ownership of data/Cartridge). Again, this would be the other view, and there is no legal authority for it. Good ole LAW~~~ 4 more freaking years~!
To put it in a simple term for license, the software you paid and downloaded and the software you paid and got the CD for, both have right to use the data. It is irrelevant whether someone owns the CD (Cartridge) or does not.
If all argument fails, if you can prove you never play the ROM on the cartage that you bought and just played the ROM you downloaded after buying, that would be a reasonable reason for misuse of the license (saying that you did not know helps in cases with no statue or authorities. I'm serious!).
What's wrong with rom hacking? As long as you own a hard copy of the game then it's perfectly legal and most rom hacks improve games.
Said before, no legal authority on that.
In fact game modifications are usually praised ----> Counter-Strike (they were even hired by Half Life Staff)
However, on moral grounds, how would you feel if people didn't ask for permissions for editing for a game you made. To be more relevant in this forum,
"How would you feel if someone modified your hacked Pokemon Rom you spent hours and hours on and put their name on the ROM WITHOUT ASKING!?!? #!@$#$%@$@%!!!~"
On license I'm pretty sure it says you cannot modify the ROM.
Since it's not even written in bold I dun care!
[FONT="]
"…a[/FONT][FONT="]
ll I say is that it is [/FONT][FONT="]
…[/FONT][FONT="]
so [/FONT][FONT="]
destructive of rights tha[/FONT][FONT="]
t the court should not hold any ma[/FONT][FONT="]
n bound by it unless it is drawn to his attention in the most explicit way[/FONT]
" [FONT="]
- Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163[/FONT][FONT="]
at 170 per [/FONT]
[FONT="]Denning MR[/FONT]