Where to place the line between collective rights and individual rights is a divisive one and open to differences of opinion and philosophy. Personally, I am not inclined to be overly encouraging of the concept of collective rights. Now, not only is Bob asserting a collective right, he is stating that it is of "paramount" importatance. Meaning literally that it is "chief in importance or impact; supreme; preeminent". More important say, than wether the club members playing the game are happy or play under good conditions. In fact, if it is of "paramount importance" to the chess community, one could imagine a motion that a game can only be rated if game scores are provided, not that that is likely to happen. The whole idea of the collective right here is annoying to some, to claim that it is paramount is off the wall.
Do you imagine that the primary purpose of people joing chess clubs is to watch other people's games or to play?
More generally, I think the player(s) in the club should be treated as customers and given what they want, not what Bob wants. If they don't want to hand in a scoresheet, then I think the appropriate response is "Yes Sir!" not withstanding the FIDE rules on ownership of the scoresheet.
And Ken: "Games played in a rated tournament in public are in the public domain. There is nothing to prohibit a spectator from recording the game" This is irrelevent. It has no bearing on whether the player should be obliged to give the spectator a copy. For that matter, if Bob wants the game so badly for his database, he can stand there and write it down.