Same mistake as the previous guy- in an attempt to "summarise" the article you've omitted details that make clear the logic behind the clause, and introduced inaccuracy.
Van Halen concerts need a LOT of amperage for their very heavy equipment.
Still misleading; makes it sound like the amperage was needed because the equipment was "heavy". Also, you're extrapolating things that weren't actually mentioned in the article.
If you read the article, the heavy equipment (which could- and did- damage floors that weren't designed to take it) was the *only* specific, detailed example given of a problem that actually happened, and wasn't related to the issue of amperage.
And the latter was only mentioned as a potential clause (" So just as a little test, in the technical aspect of the rider, it would say "Article 148: There will be fifteen amperage voltage sockets at twenty-foot spaces, evenly, providing nineteen amperes . . ." This kind of thing."). They didn't say anything about circuit breakers blowing- that may have happened, but you're still guessing.
*Van Halen inserts "M&M clause" as a mine canary to deal with bullshit venues that can't read simply documents.
Despite the fact I pointed out the problem with the *original* guy's summary of this part, you've repeated his mistake. You haven't explained *why* the clause was effective, i.e. the forfeiture penalty that anyone who'd actually read it would go out of their way to avoid... meaning that anyone who didn't do that clearly *hadn't* read it, or any of the other clauses properly.
The problem is that your summary may work as a reminder to someone who's *already* read the article and understood the points being made. But by definition, that's not what a "tl; dr" is aimed at.
Speaking as someone who's definitely too longwinded, I have great respect for the ability to be concise. Summarising by cutting corners isn't that hard. And burying all the information in a pile of semi (or not at all) relevant waffle isn't either- it's all too easy for geeks like me.
Actually distilling the *important* information into a concise but listenable *and* accurate form? That's harder to do well than most people think. :-/