Pay TV company Foxtel is preparing to launch a legal case "in the coming months" to have piracy-related websites like The Pirate Bay blocked from access in Australia.

The company has told the ABC it is currently receiving legal advice on "how best to put the legislation into effect" and expects to do so soon.

But legal experts and internet user groups are surprised they have not yet seen a Federal Court site-blocking case, and that it may be several more months before it happens.

"We are astounded, given the urgency with which this law was passed at the urging of the rights holders, that so far they haven't bothered to use it," Laurie Patton from the peak organisation for internet users Internet Australia said.

There has not yet been a case under Australia's site-blocking legislation, which was signed into law on June 26.

Entertainment news in your inbox Subscribe to get ABC News delivered to your email, including top entertainment coverage, plus the day's top news and analysis and alerts on major breaking stories.

In late May, Attorney-General George Brandis told a Senate Estimates hearing he wanted to "have that legislation through the Parliament before Parliament rises for the winter recess".

During the hearing he stressed the legislation was vital to the future of Australia's copyright industries.

"[It] is a matter of very great importance to the creative industries in particular," he said.

"And I have said many times that they are entitled to the fruits of their labour, like anyone else, and their capacity to be fully remunerated for the fruits of their labour is being very significantly eroded by piracy of their audio and visual product."

The legislation was quickly passed through Parliament after receiving support from the Labor Party.

"We would have thought that they'd [rights holders] have a raft of cases ready to go if the [piracy] problem is that critical," Mr Patton said.

"Internet Australia is concerned at the tendency of the Government to rush to pass legislation that affects the internet without having any serious proof that it will do what they hope it will do."

To try and find out why there appears to be a disconnect between the sense of urgency prior to the legislation being passed, and no subsequent legal action, the ABC asked the opinion of as many people and organisations as possible who made a submission to a Senate inquiry into the legislation.

Broadly, rights holders are still very supportive of the legislation and say it is only a matter of time until a case is launched. But many are still questioning the legislation.

"The 'urgency' was transparently absurd for legislation such as this. It was not at all a matter of national security, life or death," Chris Berg from the Institute of Public Affairs said.

"As the Government itself pointed out, the infringement it was intended to prevent had been going on for a long time."

Jon Lawrence of Electronic Frontiers Australia, which says it exists "to protect and promote the civil liberties" of computer users, agrees.

"Evidently this law was neither as urgent nor as necessary as Mr Brandis claimed," he said.

"It is unsurprising that he has seriously misunderstood the reality in this regard given his refusal to consult with consumer representatives."

Legal action is expensive, time consuming

Rights holders say legal action is expensive and takes time to organise and do it properly. Among the issue of costs is the issue of evidence.

Music Rights Australia said the evidentiary requirement to have sites blocked in Australia is high and complex.

"Litigation, in any context, is a serious matter and it takes time to compile the evidence required to meet the standard of proof courts require if an applicant is to be successful and get the orders they seek," a spokesperson for Music Rights Australia said.

"We believe section 115A will assist rights holders to disrupt these illegal sites and this will support song writers, music publishers and labels and the over 30 licensed online music services and the many bricks and mortar music stores which make music available to consumers."

It is a view echoed by Dan Rosen, the chief executive officer of the Phonographic Performance Company of Australia which represents recording artists.

"The initiation of any litigation is a very serious matter and we anticipate that all rights holders would give any such initiative serious consideration before proceeding," he said.

"It has been a very short time since it [the legislation] was given Royal Assent on the 26 June 2015."

While rights holders appear to be at the early stage of legal action, internet service providers are not aware of any planned cases.

"ISPs [internet service providers] hope that if applications are to be lodged, rights holders will discuss them in advance with ISPs, to provide an opportunity for some shared understanding on logistical and other issues," John Stanton from the Communications Alliance, which represents ISPs, said.

"These issues including timing, the provision by rights holders of a landing page to inform internet users why a website has been blocked, discussion of the various technical options for website blocking and the planned breadth of an application."