Really? When I do hard work, my payoff is...getting paid. Do you not receive a paycheck?
You don't seem to understand the business side of science.
If you work do R&D for a big pharma company, your compensation package is mostly monetary, plus a few papers that look suspect to other scientists because you have a conflict of interest. The company makes money by selling the result of your work.
If you work in an academic or other 'pure research' setting, your monetary compensation is usually pretty low. The big-name prof on a huge grant may make decent money, but no one else does. The total compensation package is made up of a decent wage (but typically far below that made by people in other professions with similar amounts of schooling), and the lack of monetary compensation is expected to be offset by publishing big papers that *might* generate name recognition and lead to better opportunities for the researches long term - bigger grants, more prestigious positions, opportunities in industry, maybe patentable technology. The funding agencies take in money from taxes, and pay it out expecting that investing in fundamental science will lead to a better future for the nation on a long time horizon - most of the research they fund is not immediately commercializable.
If you work in a government science job, your first job is to be a public servent, and so you get typical government pay scales - decent money, but still *far* below people with similar amounts of schooling, and you are still expected to make up the difference by publishing, getting name recognition, etc. - just like an academic.
So, if you can make a ton more money in other professions, or non-academic settings, why does anyone, ever, agree to take less pay for doing fundamental research?
Pro Tip - if money is the only form of compensation you take, hard core science would not be a good career choice for you.
In both the government and academic cases you are beholden to some external funding agency to get your paycheck. They'll pay your wage today, giving the appearance of the scientist having a '9-5 job' where the compensation is totally monetary. But if you want to continue being paid tomorrow, you are expected to publish - or perish. The 'perish' part happens less in government, because you still have public services to maintain, but make no mistake - you are still expected to publish, demonstrating that you are spending public funds productively, wisely and deserve to be funded again next year.
The idea of "work for pay" died when the first shitty waiter said "Where's my tip?!" and didn't get fired/smacked.
In my world, shitty wait staff don't get tipped, and shitty scientists don't get their grant renewed.
On the other hand, exceptional service at a restaurant will get you a *much* more generous tip. The equivalent for a scientist is spending years hunched over in the lab, making that big breakthough, publishing a career-making paper, winning the respect of your peers, and thereby gaining access to better funding opportunities to continue your research. Very rarely does that translate into any kind vast personal wealth, though - financial secuturity, maybe, rock star lifestyle, no.
What does this have to do with releasing data? The same thing it did in my first comment. If you release your data too soon, you don't get the 'paid' for your work (regardless of the forms of compensation you accept). If you don't release your data soon enough, your work becomes suspect, especially if people are having a hard time reproducing it. Releasing the raw data in conjunction with that big paper is critically important for the long term success of science, and doesn't actually hurt you (unless you fabricated something...). Force the release of data too soon, though, and watch the quality of science plummet as it becomes a purely for-profit endevor. It is to the benefit of society to take the a long view of the benefits of science, which is why most scientists are beholden to a government funding agency, and do not report to you, the tax payer.
Are there cases of abuse of the current system? Yes. Should these be investigated and eliminated where possible? Yes. Is the best way to do that to force every bit of data to be public domain as soon it is generated? You'll come off looking like a raving lunatic if your say yes to this one - you will doom the fate of every single publicly-funded scientist to be decided in court.