Massachi, 239 F.3d at 673-74. The statutes provide any “person aggrieved” by a violation of Section 553 or 605 with a private right of action. See 47 U.S.C. §§ 553(c)(1), 605(c)(3)(A). Although Section 553 does not contain a definition of “person aggrieved,” Section 605(d) defines this term as “any person with proprietary rights in the intercepted communication by wire or radio, including wholesale or retail distributors of satellite cable programming .... ” 47 U.S.C. § 605(d)(6). Several courts have held that the unauthorized interception and broadcast of either satellite or cable transmissions violates both 47 U.S.C. §§ 553 and 605. See, e.g., International Cablevision, Inc. v. Sykes, 75 F.3d 123, 131-33 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 929, 117 S.Ct. 298, 136 L.Ed.2d 217 (1996) (<HOLDING>); Entertainment by J&J, Inc. v. Nina’s Rest. &
holding that tort actions brought against a state actor must be brought in the illinois court of claims and the district courts dismissal of such claims was proper holding that claims of unauthorized broadcasts of cable television transmissions may be brought under both 47 usc  553 and 605 holding that the unauthorized practice of law constitutes violation of code holding that defendants unauthorized interception and broadcast of a boxing match violated sections 553 and 605 of the fca holding that ethical violations may be relevant to tort claims brought against attorneys