I am very confused here. You seem to have slipped from arguing that it was difficult and complicated to arguing that it's bad to be able to share content remotely because it's a felony, which seems like a pretty big leap.
For one thing, it's not illegal and I do rip my own media. I will access it from my phone or my laptop remotely whenever I want, thank you very much.
For another, and this has been my question all along, how is it possibly more difficult and complicated to have remote access ready to go than being "a DNS record away"? Most end users don't even know what a DNS is.
And yes, not having (obvious) server configurations up front is transparent. That's what I'm saying. It does mix at least two sources (their unavoidable, rather intrusive free streaming TV stuff and your library), but it doesn't demand that you set it up. The entire idea is to not have to worry about whether it's local content. Like I said, there are edge cases where that can lead to a subpar experience (mainly when it's downsampling your stuff to route it the long way around without telling you), but from a UX perspective I do get prioritizing serving you the content over warning you of networking issues.
I don't know, man, I'm not saying you shouldn't prefer Jellyfin. I wouldn't know, I never used it long enough to have a particularly strong opinion. I just don't get this approach where having the thing NOT surface a bunch of technical stuff up front reads as "complicated and difficult". I just get hung up on that.