The complete list of respondents subject to the activity includes Telstra, Optus, iiNet owned by TPG — Vividwireless, Virgin Mobile Australia, Foxtel, Pacnet, Alphawest, and Uecomm.

“On-Line infringement is still a leading risk to the sustainability of the Australian music business,” said Jenny Morris, chair of the APRA board.

“Prohibited foreign websites like Kickass Torrents demonstrate an entire disrespect for music creators and the worth of music. Australian music fans have accessibility — for free if they pick — to the world’s repertoire of music via more than 20 authorized on-line music services that are valid.

“Blocking access to websites like Kickass Torrents is about supporting those services and letting the writers whose tunes are accessible on them to be paid for their work.”

A case management hearing was scheduled for June 6 in the Australian Federal Court.

Virgin Mobile, and Telstra, Optus, Foxtel didn’t react to a request for opinion upon the time of publication.

Likewise, media and Foxtel business Roadshow Films in February used to block five foreign piracy sites. While Roadshow is targeting just one piracy website — the lesser-known, Philippines-based Solarmovie.ph — Foxtel is targeting four websites, which include 61 domain names. Its main objective is The Pirate Bay.

The court case between the rights holders and ISPs including TPG and Optus has reached a point where all parties are seeking the most effective and cost effective approach to execute including indicating domain name the blocks instead of IP address.

In order to demonstrate this main goal for the sites at present under consideration, counsel representing Roadshow Richard Lancaster and both Foxtel said in court the rights holders would seek to supply a synopsis of each site being targeted to the court.

“The way we have approached it in each of the proceeding would be to try to supply a picture or review of the manner each of the important sites runs by screenshots, as an example, [or a] description of someone sitting down and really going through the websites, so that Your Honour’s capable to decide that that’s really the main goal,” Lancaster described.

Counsel representing TPG, Chris Burgess, said the orders made by Lancaster, although he said that specific terms under s115A will have to be ironed out during the hearing or either dialogue had been consented to by the ISP.

Burgess recommended domain name server blocking instead of IP address blocking, because, as he pointed out, “IP addresses change quite quickly”.

In reaching agreement on the website-blocking issue, Burgess said TPG is joyful to confer with the rights holders, whereas Optus would favor a third party mediator to be made.

Counsel representing Optus, Webb, said the ISP itself will not have the capacity to disclose some problems because of deficiency of knowledge and involvement, on the part of the infringing sites.

“They are mostly not within our knowledge, and we had not have the capacity to declare,” Webb said.

“These will be the first of several proceeding — there will be others — and from Optus’ view, we actually need to confirm best practice from the beginning, so it is significant the procedure that we embrace in these cases be as fast, affordable, and efficient as possible.”