The first test case for the Government's website-blocking laws is underway in the Federal Court in Sydney, with copyright holders pushing to make it easier to shut down alternate pathways to file-sharing websites.

Key points: ISPs and copyright holders are disputing how to block website

ISPs and copyright holders are disputing how to block website Who pays for the cost of implementing blocks is also a key issue

Who pays for the cost of implementing blocks is also a key issue File share websites IsoHunt, The Pirate Bay, Torrentz are all under the spotlight

Village Roadshow and Foxtel are seeking to force internet service providers like Telstra, Optus and TPG to block file-sharing websites IsoHunt, The Pirate Bay, Torrentz, TorrentHound and SolarMovie.

The recently passed Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015 amends the Copyright Act to allow copyright holders — like movie, TV and music producers — to apply to the Federal Court to get an order to have piracy-related websites blocked.

The legislation does not detail how the sites should be blocked and this is one of the key points Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and copyright holders are disputing.

Richard Lancaster SC, representing copyright holder Foxtel, wanted a site-blocking order which would allow rights holders to extend blocks if they discover a new pathway to the file-sharing website without having to go back to court.

"Applicants will need to form the view by the simple Whois search that the IP associated with the new path is outside of Australia," Mr Lancaster said.

"[ISPs can be notified] and then that can become part of a bundle of sites regulated.

"[ISPs] want a more elaborate process where we have to prepare an affidavit, come back to court for an additional order.

"It provides additional costs, delays and inefficiency in [complying with the injunction]."

Got a confidential news tip? Email ABC Investigations at investigations@abc.net.au For more sensitive information: Text message using the Signal phone app +61 436 369 072 No system is 100 per cent secure, but the Signal app uses end-to-end encryption and can protect your identity. Please read the terms and conditions.

The lawyer representing Telstra, Tony Bannon SC, said the requirement of filing an amendment to the injunction with the court would require little effort on behalf of rights holders.

"The amount of work by sending it to court; the incremental difference — if it exists at all — it must be negligible," he said.

"Our scheme assumes that the court would require some supervision about it — it wouldn't be a rubber stamp but somebody in the court would be satisfied and the order would be made."

He said it was crucial that the court was satisfied that the online location of the copyright infringement was outside of Australia.

(Online) location, location, location

The legislation prescribes that rights holders need to show that the "online location" which infringes or facilitates an infringement of the copyright is outside of Australia.

Rights holder lawyers spent much of the hearing trying to define exactly what an "online location" actually was.

"It's clear in our submission that it is not specific URLs or IP addresses," Mr Lancaster said on Thursday.

"As the cases overseas, particularly in UK, have identified there is an ongoing problem with what you can call workarounds by site operators where new URLs or IP addresses are registered to provide access to same material but by a different pathway."

Justice John Nicholas sought a technical explanation of the evidence and recalled KordaMentha computer forensics expert Nigel Carson on Friday morning.

"Ultimately the online location, as per my report, is really representing itself to the user as a website. It's a website that sits on a computer," Mr Carson said.

"The primary site or the secondary sites are one physical computer or cluster of computers that represent themselves as one computer."

Justice Nicholas later clarified: "Is it the whereabouts — is that what we're talking about when we're talking about an online location?"

Carson replied: "Yes."

Justice Nicholas later indicated in proceedings he considered online location as being "the same house — the address has just changed".

Who pays?

The copyright holders believe that the cost of implementing these site blocks — whatever form they may take — should be born by the internet providers.

Mr Lancaster said standard practice was for parties subject to an injunction to pay for the cost of implementing the blocks.

"If that costs money, that costs money," he said.

"[ISPs] still profit from the use of service and it's an appropriate cost of doing business that when the law requires illegal or infringing conduct be blocked … and that requires some action on behalf of the [ISPs] they should bear those costs."

Telstra's lawyer said the cost of implementing DNS blocking on the 61 domains would be around $1,500.

He said there was no evidence ISPs benefit from infringing activities.

"The question is then … whether a neutral and innocent party should be obliged to bear the costs of making that order," he said.

The judge has reserved his decision.