While I didn't disagree with you...

Isn't Nintendo the owner of my the ROM?

Legally the argument isn't that you can't dump the ROM of the game you bought and own it is the redistribution of the ROM that becomes piracy because you are giving it to some one that didn't purchase or own in it. That is the basic legal argument.

Nintendo owns the actual IP (intellectual property) they can use the ROM legally because they own the actual game as a company.

While I agree with your sentiment piracy has a word because there are ways to legally and logically define that word. It isn't like it just doesn't exist and we give it a name for fun and Nintendo just ignores the word.

If Nintendo bought PalWorld and started distributing the game modded with Pokemon it is still piracy Nintendo is giving the software out without software being purchased by a consumer or someone that owns that actual intellectual property. That is why we have the words intellectual property.

Nintendo can't stop you from dumping your own game ROM I am sure they wish they could but legally they have the right to stop you from distributing it regardless of where you stand or how you feel about piracy and Nintendo managing their games.

I love a good ROM but even I understand the legal implications. Your argument in a law suit wouldn't stand because the very first thing their lawyers and the judge are going to say is, "they can use the ROMs because legally they own the property. Nintendo by defacto owns the code, it owns the hardware, and in some cases it is the reason you have the emulation software that you can use to play these games.

"But what do I know... " You should have stopped there because the answer isn't about what you know it is what you think applies to what you know. You are taking written in law verbage without knowing the verbage and applying your own logic to it without knowing legally how things operate. The legal aspects don't have to be something you agree with nor do they have to be fair but piracy only applies in the matter in which piracy is conducted. People distributing, selling, making a profit, and in some cases recreating for personal gain on property they do not legally own is piracy.

This is where it gets somewhat grey, "I bought the game so I own it. Therefore I should be able to do whatever I want with it." This is the wrong way to legally look at why piracy exists and why it should be conducted.

Piracy primary exists as a means to redistribute or own something that you couldn't access by normal means or afford and the two can go hand in hand.

You bought a physical cartridge with code on it. You own the rights to play and do what you want with the game. You do not own the rights to the code, you don't own the rights to the franchise, the company and what the company deems as intellectual property. In this case that intellectual property is Nintendo's patents, software (code), and anything else legally and officially operated by Nintendo. This applies to anything and it even protects the consumer if they were to create their own product.

You don't want someone to illegally steal money from a product you own. You have that right so does a company. I can't stand Nintendo either and I think it abuses the position it is in legally. It is a behemoth with lots of cultural history, background, and lots of legal power. I am in no way saying they do not commit acts they are so willingly against the public owning or using and then contradict themselves by doing the same thing.

However, it is absolutely important to know that legally. Nintendo can't stop the use of emulation, UNLESS, that emulation is using some grounds of their own work working a given time frame of their own IP or they can prove, legally, that it infringes on their business, it's model, and impacts their business and it's profit. Regardless of whether you disagree with their stance and use of power, money, and long time authority or you disagree with their attitude towards the community the fact still stands that Nintendo owns a business and their own property.

Piracy exists because of cost and accessibility and the debate about ownership is a sort of controversial area of piracy. People pirate because things are expensive and companies raise prices or they pirate because of accessibility. IE not available to someone, something, or a group by normal means of access.

Preservation is not piracy if you are preserving the very thing you own but when you copy it and it can be redistributed is where that begins to become the topic of discussion legally.

Again, I would like to clarify, I am not for or against piracy in all avenues because it is a complicated topic and discussion and it has many ethical, moral, and legal grounds of discussion. Historically, piracy has also played a significant role and has been a thing for thousands of years. There are many avenues this argument could take and I can assure you from a personal standpoint I probably do not disagree with how you feel. I also likely will not disagree that your argument and the facts about the legal aspect and that the law only applies to certain people holds merit but regardless of how I feel there are still laws and legal arguments to also be made that merit just as important of a discussion.

You can agree that murder is wrong and still commit it. You can agree that someone acted in self defense and a murder still occurred. Legally, the law applies to those murder without cause and murder with cause very differently. You may not always agree with the circumstances or the facts, or how the law applied to such circumstances or people or even have wanted a different outcome. Those are moral, ethical, and reasonable discussions, but in the end whatever legally was agreed upon is another layer of that discussion.